(Six days before the Nov. 5 election, Newsmakers presents a time-is-running-out guide to the 10 state ballot measures. As usual, decisions confronting voters range from the straightforward (Prop. 2 school bonds) to the bizarre (Prop. 34 in the house!) and the utterly incomprehensible (shout-out Prop. 35!). More confounding, the ballot not only starts with Proposition 2, instead of, ou know, Prop. 1 (don't ask) but also jumps from Prop. 6 to (checks notes) Prop. 32 (you don[t want to know). Excerpted from a comprehensive analysis from independent, non-profit, Sacramento-based Calmatters, this ballot measure Baedeker for each issue presents a neutral description, the main pro-and-con arguments, an explainer of how it got on the ballot, a list of key supporters and opponents and links to yes-and-no media editorials. For those who just can't get enough of this stuff, you can find the Full Calmatters Ballot Measure Experience here. --jr)
By Calmatters
Proposition 2: To borrow $10 billion to build schools, colleges.
What would it do?
Proposition 2 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.
Why is it on the ballot?
Thousands of California school buildings are in poor shape, with leaky roofs, broken air conditioning, peeling paint and other health and safety hazards.
According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 38% of students attend schools that don’t meet the state’s minimum safety standards. Research hasshown that students who attend school in sub-standard facilities tend to have lower attendance rates, lower morale and lower achievement.
Unlike many other states, California does not pay for school repairs through a permanent funding stream.
Money comes entirely from state and local bonds. The state’s last school facilities bond, a $15 billion proposal in 2020, failed, leaving the state’s school repair account nearly empty.
Affluent school districts can raise more money for repairs through local bonds because local property values are higher, thereby generating more money through local property taxes. Smaller and lower income districts struggle to raise enough bond money to pay for school repairs,
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters say this money is crucial for making basic safety improvements in schools, as well as for important upgrades like modern science labs, performing arts spaces and transitional kindergarten classrooms. School districts in lower-income areas have no other way to pay for those improvements.
Prop. 2 Supporters
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond
Association of California School Administrators
California Labor Federation
California Chamber of Commerce
California Federation of Teachers
California School Boards Association
League of Women Voters of California
Small School Districts Association
California Republican Party
California Democratic Party
Prop. 2 Media Endorsements
San Francisco Chronicle
Sacramento Bee
Los Angeles Times
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Opponents say the state should include school repairs in its regular budget rather than turn to taxpayers, who they say are already overburdened. In addition, they argue that Prop. 2 would not directly impact students.
Several organizations are neutral on Prop. 2 but have voiced concerns about what they see as the inequitable distribution of funds. The state’s sliding scale for matching funds should be wider, they said, with lower-income districts receiving a greater share of the funds. The nonprofit law firm Public Advocates has threatened to sue if the measure passes.
Prop. 2 Opponents
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Anti-Prop. 2 Media Endorsements
East Bay Times/Mercury News
Southern California News Group
San Diego Union-Tribune
Proposition 3: To re-affirm the right of same-sex couples to marry
What would it do?
Proposition 3 would 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, the ballot measure would not change who can marry.
Why is it on the ballot?
California, the state with the nation’s largest LGBTQ population, was thrust into national spotlight in 2004, when then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, defying a federal ban on gay marriage. The California Supreme Court quickly shut it down, and Californians voted in 2008 to ban same-sex marriage in the state.
That language — while still on the books — is effectively void after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 allowed same-sex marriage to resume in California, and the high court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in a historic 2015 decision. In 2020, Nevada became the first state to enshrine the right to same-sex marriage in its constitution.
California state Sen. Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Evan Low, both Democrats in the Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, introduced the constitutional amendment as a preemptive protection after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections in 2022. Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative, said that the court should also reconsider the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, but other conservatives on the bench disagreed.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters argue the measure would simply remove obsolete language from the California constitution and uphold the right to a practice already recognized by the highest court in the land. The protection is especially timely, they said, due to “recent threats against fundamental rights,” alluding to the 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to decide abortion laws.
Prop. 3 Supporters
Equality California
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
California Democratic Party
Gov. Gavin Newsom
League of Women Voters of California
California Labor Federation
California Chamber of Commerce
Prop. 3 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Opponents say the measure goes too far and would “override” marriage laws and remove protections against “child marriages, incest, and polygamy.” They argue that it’s best for children to be raised by both mothers and fathers, and that the measure “threatens our shared values of healthy families, healthy children, and a healthy society.”
An analysis of the proposal’s impact by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office does not mention changes to state marriage laws.
Prop. 3 Opponents
California Family Council
The American Council of Evangelicals
Anti-Prop. 3 Media Endorsements
Proposition 4: To borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change
What would it do?
Approving Proposition 4 would authorize $10 billion in debt to spend 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.
Why is it on the ballot?
Environmental groups and renewable energy advocates have been clamoring for increased spending on climate change and the environment in recent years, particularly after Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature approved a $54.3 billion spending package called the “California Climate Commitment” in 2022, only to scale it back to $44.6 billion this budget-plagued year.
About $3.8 billion would be spent on water projects — half to improve water quality, the remainder on protecting the state from floods and droughts, and other activities, including restoring rivers and lakes. The rest of the money would be spent on: wildfire and extreme heat projects, $1.95 billion; natural lands, parks and wildlife projects, $1.9 billion; coastal lands, bays and ocean protection, $1.2 billion; clean energy projects, $850 million; agricultural projects, $300 million.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters argue that, given the threat the state faces from wildfires, water pollution, and extreme heat, the need for more spending on these issues is “urgent.” Dozens of environmental groups are backing the measure.
Prop. 4 Supporters
Clean Water Action
National Wildlife Federation
California Professional Firefighters
California Labor Federation
California Teachers Association
SEIU California
League of Women Voters of California
California Democratic Party
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
California Municipal Utilities Association
Prop. 4 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Opponents argue that “bonds are the most expensive way for the government to pay for things” and that some of the money could go toward unproven technologies. They say that California should pay for such projects without taking on more debt.
Prop. 4 Opponents
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
California Republican Party
Senate GOP leader Brian Jones
Assemblymember Jim Patterson
Anti-Prop. 4 Media Endorsements
Proposition 5: To make it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing, infrastructure projects
What would it do?
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.
Proposition 5 would amend 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.
If it passes, the new cut-off would apply not just to future bonds, but any that are on the ballot this November.
Why is it on the ballot?
Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Democrat from Winters, has been trying and failing to get some version of this on the ballot since 2017. After a helpful promotion to Assembly majority leader, she finally got her way this year.
The Legislature voted to put Prop. 5 on the ballot last fall. But after a bit of political wrangling this spring, lawmakers passed a second measure to make a few last-minute changes. Though an earlier version applied to certain tax hikes, the proposition now only covers bonds. It also now includes a ban on local governments using the money to buy up existing single-family homes to convert them into affordable units. That change was required to persuade the powerful California Association of Realtors not to oppose the measure (though it gave money to the opposition campaign before then).
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters argue that allowing just one third of voters to overrule the wishes of two thirds is undemocratic. If the majority of voters want their local government to borrow money to fund desperately needed affordable housing or other public infrastructure, they should be able to do so.
Backers also say this is a question of local control. Reducing the required vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% would allow local officials to fund their own priorities more easily without having to rely as much on statewide bonds or federal dollars.
Prop. 5 Supporters
California Democratic Party
California State Building and Construction Trades Council
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
California Housing Partnership
California YIMBY
California Labor Federation
League of Women Voters of California
United Way Bay Area
Prop. 5 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Opponents argue that it’s always easy to support taking on more debt if you aren’t the one who has to pay it back. When a local government decides to borrow money, that tab almost always gets put on property owners — who might make up a minority of voters — through higher taxes. Rather than allow a narrow majority to make what are potentially financially irresponsible decisions, the choice to issue a bond should be made only when a broad consensus exists.
Critics also call this measure just the latest attempt by Democratic lawmakers to undo the taxpayer protections that California voters embedded into the state constitution with Proposition 13.
Prop. 5 Opponents
California Chamber Of Commerce
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
National Federation of Independent Businesses
California Republican Party
Catalyst For Local Control
Anti-Prop. 5 Media Endorsements
Proposition 6: To limit forced labor in state prisons
What would it do?
Proposition 6 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments and from disciplining those who refuse to work. Instead, state prisons could set up a volunteer work assignment program to take time off sentences in the form of credits. It would let county or city ordinances set up a pay scale for inmates in local jails.
The measure’s potential costs remain unknown and a point of contention, though a related law says compensation would be set by the state corrections department.
Why is it on the ballot?
California wasn’t a slave state, but it does have a history of forced labor. Lawmakers created a reparations task force and directed it to address historical inequities that harmed Black residents. The task force recommended changing the state constitution to prohibit any form of enslavement as one of 14 key priorities this session.
Legislators considered a similar measure in 2022, but support tanked after the California Department of Finance estimated that it would cost about $1.5 billion annually to pay minimum wage to prisoners. This year’s amendment has the voluntary work program as a way to get around that issue.
Of about 90,000 inmates, the state’s prison system employs nearly 40,000 who complete a variety of tasks such as construction, yard work, cooking, cleaning and firefighting. Most of them earn less than 74 cents an hour, although inmate firefighters can earn as much as $10 a day. California’s minimum wage is $16 an hour, and state law permits the corrections department to pay up to half of that rate.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters say that prisoners are often retaliated against for turning down assignments that can be dangerous or life threatening. It’s inhumane, they say, to have to work long hours on jobs that do not necessarily contribute to future skills for little pay.
They also cite the growing number of states — including Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee and Vermont in recent years — that have adopted similar measures, though California would have stronger language against retaliation toward inmates.
Prop. 6 Supporters
ACLU California Action
Anti-Recidivism Coalition
California Democratic Party
California Teachers Association
California Black Legislative Caucus
California Labor Federation
League of Women Voters of California
Council on American-Islamic Relations, California
Prop. 6 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
An official ballot argument against the measure has not been filed. But a few Republican legislators voted against it. It reflects their larger opposition to reparations efforts by the state at a time when the budget deficit is a top priority.
Critics in other states have said that the current work system helps inmates and promotes necessary order in facilities aiming to rehabilitate inmates. Some say that upending that system by allowing inmates to turn down assignments could eventually make it more difficult to manage prisons.
Prop. 6 Opponents
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
California Republican Party
Anti-Prop.6 Media Endorsements
Proposition 32: To raise state minimum wage to $18 an hour
What would it do?
Proposition 32 would raise the minimum wage to $17 for the remainder of 2024, and $18 an hour starting in January 2025 — a bump from the current $16. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be required to start paying at least $17 next year, and $18 in 2026. If voters say “yes,” California will have the nation’s highest state minimum wage.
Starting in 2027, the wage would be adjusted based on inflation, as the state already does. The hike would apply statewide, but it would have a bigger effect in some areas than in others. Nearly 40 California cities have local minimum wages that are higher than the state’s, including six that already require at least $18 and several already are just a small inflationary adjustment away from it.
Why is it on the ballot?
In 2022, California became the first state to reach a $15 minimum wage — a figure long fought for by unions and restaurant workers. But labor activists say the state’s sky-high cost of living has already made that standard barely livable. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, even in the cheapest California county (Modoc), a single adult with no children would need to make at least $20.32 an hour to comfortably afford the basics. The statewide average? $27.32.
Wealthy startup-investor-turned-anti-poverty-advocate Joe Sanberg first pushed an $18 minimum wage three years ago, and poured $10 million into a signature-gathering effort to qualify the measure for the 2022 ballot. The measure included more gradual wage hikes starting in 2023. But the campaign missed a key deadline, pushing it to this year’s ballot. That means a quicker hike to $18 in January if voters approve the measure in November.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Labor groups support the measure, though many say it’s not as high a minimum wage as they’d like. Sanberg estimates it would give raises to 2 million workers statewide who haven’t yet benefitted from industry-specific raises, or don’t live in cities that require a higher wage. Supporters also argue the money would help families afford basic needs, would be spent at local businesses and would help reduce low-income Californians’ use of taxpayer-provided benefits. UC Berkeley studies have found that California’s gradual increase to $15 had “no significant” effect on job losses.
Prop. 32 Supporters
California Labor Federation
Unite Here
One Fair Wage
Working Families Party California
United Farm Workers
California Democratic Party
League of Women Voters of California
Prop. 32 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Business groups oppose the measure. They argue employers already face increased supply and labor costs from inflation and that for some, business hasn’t bounced back fully since the COVID pandemic. They point to the state government itself, which, facing a budget deficit, delayed a $25 health care worker minimum wage until this fall to see if it has the cash to cover it, and argue private employers should get the same benefit. They also point to surveys commissioned by the small city of West Hollywood, where 42% of businesses said they laid off staff or cut workers’ hours in response to the city’s $19.08 minimum wage.
Prop. 32 Opponents
California Chamber of Commerce
California Restaurant Association
California Grocers Association
National Federation of Independent Business
California Republican Party
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Anti-Prop. 32 Media Endorsements
Proposition 33: To allow local governments to impose rent controls
What would it do?
Many cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, limit the amount a landlord can raise the rent each year — a policy known as rent control. But for nearly 30 years, California has imposed limits on those limits, via a law known as Costa-Hawkins. Cities cannot set rent control on single-family homes or apartments built after 1995. And landlords are free to set their own rental rates when new tenants move in.
If Proposition 33 passes, that would change. Cities would be allowed to control rents on any type of housing – including single-family homes and new apartments, and for new tenants.
Why is it on the ballot?
Nearly 30% of California renters spend more than half their income on rent — higher than in any other state except Florida and Louisiana, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
To change that, tenant advocates have been fighting Costa-Hawkins for years, but so far, without success. They tried to overturn it with ballot measures in 2018 and 2020. Lawmakers also tried with legislation. While those efforts failed, Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019 signed a law limiting annual rent increases statewide to 5% plus inflation.
Supporters of Prop. 33 say that doesn’t go far enough. They hope this finally is the year to upend the decades-old rules controlling rent control. But landlord groups opposing the idea tend to have deep pockets, and have been willing to spend a small fortune to convince voters that rent control is not the answer to the state’s housing crisis.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Arguments in support of Prop. 33 boil down to one, basic point: The rent is too damn high. Teachers, police officers and firefighters starting their careers are paying half their salary to live in many California cities, while others on fixed incomes are one step away from homelessness.
Supporters argue rent control works well in many cities to help keep people housed. And, they say, passing Prop. 33 will return decisions about rent control back to local governments, which can pass tailored policies that work for their residents.
Prop. 33 Supporters
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
California Democratic Party
Veterans’ Voices
California Nurses Association
CA Alliance for Retired Americans
Housing is a Human Right
Tenants Together
Consumer Watchdog
Housing NOW
ACCE
UNITE HERE Local 11
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Opponents say if cities adopt strict rent control ordinances, it will make California’s already dire housing shortage even worse. They argue property values will drop and developers will be less likely to build new housing, which, in turn, will drive up prices in existing rental units.
Critics also point out the measure does not actually include protections for renters After all, opponents argue, California voters have shot down this proposal twice already.
Prop. 33 Opponents
California Small Business Association
California Rental Housing Association
California Senior Alliance
California Council of Carpenters
California YIMBY
California Chamber of Commerce
California Republican Party
Sen. Toni Atkins
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Anti-Prop. 33 Media Endorsements
Proposition 34: To require certain providers to use prescription drug revenue for patients
What would it do?
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 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 only applies to one organization: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
The measure would also put into law a Newsom administration policy that requires all state agencies to negotiate for lower drug prices as a single entity.
Why is it on the ballot?
The short answer is that a lot of politicians and housing interest groups really don’t like Michael Weinstein.
Weinstein is the longtime president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS clinics in 15 states. Under his leadership, the foundation has also become a major player in state and local housing politics. It has poured tens of millions of dollars into two unsuccessful statewide rent control measures (Prop. 33 on this year’s ballot is round three).
It has aggressively lobbied and campaigned against legislation requiring local governments to permit denser housing, at one point likening a bill authored by San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener to “negro removal.” In 2017, the foundation backed a partial moratorium on development in Los Angeles and sued to halt construction on residential highrises. Along the way, the foundation has amassed a sizable portfolio of rental properties in LA’s Skid Row that have been saddled with habitability and health complaints.
Though Weinstein has plenty of political foes, a familiar one is funding this initiative: The California Apartment Association, the state’s premier landlord lobby and a major opponent of rent control.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters say this is a simple case of accountability. When the federal government gives discounts to health care providers, taxpayers deserve to know that the money is being used to help the neediest patients. This proposition, they say, would provide much needed transparency and rein in abuse.
Supporters have also called out Weinstein specifically, calling him a “safety net scammer.” Prop. 34 would keep Weinstein from diverting the organization’s funds away from disadvantaged HIV and AIDS patients and towards his quixotic political projects.
Prop. 34 Supporters
California Apartment Association
ALS Association
Assemblymember Evan Low
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Republican Party
Prop. 34 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Opponents argue that this is a political hit job paid for by a landlord lobby out for revenge. In a democracy, they say, campaigns should make their case to the voters, not silence their opponents.
They also say the measure is also illegal and therefore unenforceable because both the U.S. and state constitutions prohibit a law from singling out a single person or organization for punishment. The foundation put that argument in a lawsuit late last year. Though the state Supreme Court declined to remove the proposition from the ballot on those grounds, courts rarely do so prior to an election. The constitutional issues remain unaddressed. If Prop. 34 passes, it will almost certainly end up back in court.
Prop. 34 Opponents
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Consumer Watchdog
Anti-Prop. 34 Media Endorsements
Proposition 35: To make permanent a tax on managed care health insurance plans
What would it do?
Proposition 35 would require the state to spend the money from a tax on health care plans on 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 would also prevent legislators from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upwards 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.
Why is it on the ballot?
Lawmakers have dramatically expanded Medi-Cal in the past 10 years to include all low-income residents regardless of citizenship. Benefits have also been restored from Great Recession-era cuts to include dental insurance, hearing aids and doulas. Today, more than 14 million Californians — roughly a third of the state population — use Medi-Cal. Over the same time period, payments to doctors and other Medi-Cal providers have increased only incrementally if at all. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, California’s reimbursement rate falls in the bottom third nationally. As a result, many providers won’t treat Medi-Cal patients.
The coalition of doctors, hospitals and clinics that gathered signatures to place this issue on the ballot want the tax revenue to go toward increased payments.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters argue that California has relied on this tax — known as the Managed Care Organization Tax — for decades to offset general fund spending on Medi-Cal. Managed care health plans pay a tax to get a dollar-for-dollar matching amount of money from the federal government. Health providers who serve Medi-Cal patients argue that the tax revenue should be used for new investments in Medi-Cal rather than supporting the state’s general fund. Supporters also state that the measure leaves some money unrestricted to give lawmakers flexibility in balancing the budget or investing in additional Medi-Cal services.
Prop. 35 Supporters
California Medical Association
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
California Hospital Association
California Dental Association
California Primary Care Association
California Democratic Party
California Republican Party
Prop. 35 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Gov. Newsom has indicated he will oppose the measure even though there is no official registered opposition group so far. He argues restricting how the tax revenue is spent “hamstrings” future legislators and governors’ ability to balance the state budget.
Prop. 35 Opponents
League of Women Voters of California
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
The Children’s Partnership
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Courage California
Western Center on Law and Poverty
ACCE Action
Anti-Prop. 35 Media Endorsements
Proposition 36: To Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking
What would it do?
Proposition 36 would reclassify some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies.
The measure would also create a new category of crime — a “treatment-mandated felony.” People who don’t contest the charges 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.
Why is it on the ballot?
Ten years ago, voters approved Proposition 47, which sought to reduce California’s prison overcrowding by making some theft and drug crimes into misdemeanors. Since then, prosecutors, police and big box retailers have blamed the law for an increase in property crimes and homelessness. Prop. 36 is their attempt to unwind Prop. 47.
During the pandemic, the rate of shoplifting and commercial burglaries skyrocketed, especially in Los Angeles, Alameda, San Mateo and Sacramento counties. Statewide, the Public Policy Institute of California found that reported shoplifting of merchandise worth up to $950 soared 28% over the past five years. That’s the highest observed level since 2000.
Combining shoplifting with commercial burglaries, the institute’s researchers found that total reported thefts were 18% higher than in 2019.
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
Supporters pitch Prop. 36 as a way to combat homelessness, which is up by more than 50% since Prop. 47 passed. The reason, supporters say, is that drug dependence pushes people to the street, and increasing the penalties for drug possession is the only way to force people into treatment.
Supporters also say Prop. 36 is a good middle ground between California’s tough-on-crime days, which pushed prison capacity past its breaking point, and the last decade under Prop. 47, which they have say created “loopholes in state law that criminals exploit to avoid accountability for fentanyl trafficking and repeat retail theft.”
Prop. 36 Supporters
Walmart, Target, Home Depot
California District Attorneys Association
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Republican Party
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Prop. 36 Media Endorsements
ARGUMENT AGAINST
Opponents say that no studies on criminal justice or homelessness support the idea that harsher punishment — or the threat of harsher punishment — prevents crime or gets people off the street.
Prop. 36 will expend hundreds of millions of dollars in court and prison costs, they say, without measurably reducing crime or poverty. In the meantime, schools, health care and other essential services will go wanting.
The measure’s opponents argue Prop. 36 would mark a return to the War on Drugs, which they said California voters rejected a decade ago with Prop. 47.
Prop. 36 Opponents
Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire
Alliance for Safety and Justice
ACLU of Northern California
California Democratic Party
League of Women Voters of California
Council on American-Islamic Relations, California
Anti-Prop. 36 Media Endorsements
Image: Newsmakers' Ballot Measure Demystification, Simplification and Abacus Design Team getting ready for Election Night (actually NASA scientists doin' it old school, 1961 (imgur.com).
Comments