Voters Tough on Crime, But Not on Rent Control or Wages. Here’s How the State Propositions Are Faring

California voters appear poised to grant a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, restore longer prison sentences for some drug and property crimes and allow the state to borrow billions to address the threats of climate change and repair schools. But rent control and an increase in the state’s minimum wage were not winning on Tuesday night.

In early returns, six of the state’s 10 propositions were passing.

Prop. 2: Leaning Yes

Proposition 2 was showing to be firmly favored by Californians. The bond measure would provide $8.5 billion to K-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges to renovate, fix and construct facilities. The money would be distributed through matching grants, with the state paying a greater share of costs for less affluent districts and those with higher numbers of English learners and foster youth. Some of the money would be set aside for removing lead from water, creating transitional kindergarten classrooms and building career and technical education facilities.

Prop. 3: Leaning Yes

Proposition 3 appeared to be sailing to an easy win on Tuesday night. The ballot measure will enshrine the right to same-sex marriage into the California constitution, repealing Proposition 8 — a measure approved by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In practice, it would not change who can marry.

Prop. 4: Leaning Yes

Voters also were leaning toward spending an additional $10 billion to address climate change in a variety of areas, including drinking water improvements and extreme heat and wildfire programs. Proposition 4 will authorize spending on environmental and climate projects, with the biggest chunk — $1.9 billion — for drinking water improvements. The bond prioritizes lower-income communities, and those most vulnerable to climate change, and requires annual audits.

Repaying the money could cost $400 million a year over 40 years, a legislative analysis said, meaning taxpayers could spend $16 billion.

Prop. 5: Leaning No

California makes it difficult for local governments to borrow money. Not only do most city and county bonds require voter approval, they need the support of at least two-thirds of those voting to pass.

Those who cast a ballot in this election were not feeling like that needed to change, as Proposition 5 was failing by a strong margin in early returns.

The measure would have amended the California constitution by lowering the required threshold to 55% for any borrowing to fund affordable housing construction, down payment assistance programs and a host of “public infrastructure” projects, including those for water management, local hospitals and police stations, broadband networks and parks. 

Prop. 6: Leaning No

Proposition 6, which was showing low voter approval in initial voting, would have amended the California Constitution from prohibiting the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments and from disciplining those who refuse to work.

Had it passed, state prisons would have been able to set up a volunteer work assignment program to take time off sentences in the form of credits. It would have let county or city ordinances set up a pay scale for inmates in local jails.

Prop. 32: Leaning No

In another blow for a statewide minimum wage increase, Proposition 32 was failing in early returns.

The measure was meant to raise the minimum wage to $17 for the remainder of 2024, and to $18 an hour starting in January 2025 — a bump from the current $16.

The move would have given California the nation’s highest state minimum wage.

Prop. 33: Leaning No

The third time was not the charm for the Los Angeles-based nonprofit AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which was backing  Proposition 33.

The measure would have allowed cities to control rents on any type of housing — including single-family homes and new apartments, and for new tenants.

California voters were soundly saying no to this effort Tuesday night.

Prop. 34: Leaning Yes

Since 1992, federal law has given health care providers a deal: Serve low-income and at-risk patients and get a discount on pharmaceuticals. Providers that make use of this program can turn around and sell those drugs at retail rates. Their profits can then be used to expand their healthcare services to disadvantaged groups. 

Proposition 34, which was showing early favor among voters, would require some California providers to spend at least 98% of that net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” Providers that don’t risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.

But the proposition doesn’t apply to all providers — only those that spend at least $100 million on expenses other than direct care, that also own and operate apartment buildings and that have racked up at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade.

As far as anyone can tell, that applies to only one organization: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The measure is an effort by the state’s leading apartment lobby to financially handicap the foundation by forcing it to spend much of its funding directly on its low-income patients.

The measure also would put into law a government policy that requires all state agencies to negotiate for lower drug prices as a single entity.

Voters were in favor of Proposition 35, which will provide permanent funding for Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities. The revenue would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs. It also would prevent legislators from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upward of $35 billion.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed using the tax revenue to cover other Medi-Cal program expenses, walking back a deal to support new investments.

Prop. 36: Yes

Frustrated with rising crime, voters easily passed Proposition 36, capping a chaotic 10 months of bargaining and wrangling at the state Capitol where Democratic leaders unsuccessfully sought to preserve a decade of criminal justice reform.

Instead, the campaign to increase penalties for theft and repeated convictions for drug possession looks won out.

Proposition 36, opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, reclassiffies some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies.

The measure also creates a new category of crime — a “treatment-mandated felony.” People who don’t contest criminal charges after multiple drug possession convictions could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison, but if they don’t finish treatment, they still face up to three years in prison. 

CalMatters is a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s state Capitol works and why it matters.