REGION — California voters will soon head to the polls to determine the fate of 10 statewide propositions touching on key issues, including affordable housing, same-sex marriage, healthcare, crime and more.
Below is a comprehensive breakdown of the propositions, identifying supporters and opponents for each proposal and the amount of money raised in these efforts.
PROPOSITION 2: Borrow $10 billion to build schools, colleges
What would it do?
Proposition 2 proposes borrowing $10 billion through state bonds to improve public school and community college facilities. Of this amount, $8.5 billion would go toward K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges. Funds for K-12 would include $3.3 billion for new construction, $4 billion for renovations, and $600 million each for charter schools and technical education.
Since California lacks regular funding for school facility maintenance and repairs, many districts — especially smaller, less affluent ones — urgently need funds to meet safety standards. The last state-funded school bond was in 2016, and the $9 billion it provided has nearly been depleted. A $15 billion bond in 2020 failed to pass.
Funds would be distributed as matching grants, with a larger share going to less affluent districts and those with more English language learners and foster youth. Paying off the bond could cost taxpayers about $500 million annually for 35 years.
Paying off Proposition 2 is estimated to cost taxpayers around $500 million annually for roughly 35 years.
Who is in favor?
Supporters, including State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, the Association of California School Administrators, and both major political parties, have raised $8.7 million. They argue Proposition 2 provides critical funding, especially for districts unable to pass local bonds.
Who is against it?
Opponents, led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argue it would add to the state’s $79 billion bond debt, favor wealthier districts and increase taxpayer costs over time. They also believe school facilities should be funded within the regular budget. No money has been raised against the measure.
PROPOSITION 3: Constitutional right to marriage
What would it do?
Proposition 3 aims to enshrine same-sex marriage in the state constitution, updating language from 2008’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. While same-sex marriage has been legal in California since 2013, proponents seek to safeguard it against potential future changes in federal law.
The old definition has essentially been void since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California in 2013, followed by the court’s decision to legalize marriage equality nationwide.
State legislators, including state Sens. Scott Wiener of San Francisco and Evan Lowe of Cupertino, brought forward the constitutional amendment as a preemptive measure after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights in 2022.
Who is in favor?
Proponents of Proposition 3 have raised $3.3 million and say the current state law banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and that the state should enshrine the right to marriage in case federal protections for marriage equality are rolled back in the future. Supporters include Equality California, ACLU of Northern California, California Democratic Party and League of Women Voters of California.
Who is against it?
Opponents, including the California Family Council and American Council of Evangelicals, have not raised funds but argue the amendment is unnecessary, as same-sex marriage is already protected. They also claim it could remove safeguards against child marriages, incest and polygamy despite existing laws that prohibit such acts.
PROPOSITION 4: Borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change
What would it do?
If approved by California voters, Proposition 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion through a bond to pay for environmental and climate projects, potentially spending up to $1.9 billion on drinking water improvements. Other potential aims include wildfire prevention and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks.
Funds would go to local governments, tribes, nonprofits, and some state agencies. According to a legislative analysis, the bond could cost taxpayers up to $16 billion over 40 years, or $400 million per year.
Who is in favor?
Supporters have raised nearly $1 million and argue more funding is urgently needed to address climate-related issues. Organizations in support include 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 and California Municipal Utilities Association.
Who is against it?
Opponents, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Republican Party and California Senate GOP leader Brian Jones, argue that bonds are costly and that funds might go to unproven technologies. They suggest projects should be funded without incurring more debt. No funds have been raised in opposition to Proposition 4. Media endorsements opposing the proposition include Southern California News Group, East Bay Times/Mercury News and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
PROPOSITION 5: Lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure
What would it do?
Proposition 5 aims to lower the voter threshold for approving local government bonds from two-thirds to 55%, allowing funding for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects.
Who is in favor?
Supporters have raised $5 million and argue that requiring two-thirds voter approval for local bonds is undemocratic and hinders much-needed funding for affordable housing and public infrastructure. With major backing from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative ($5 million total), groups such as the California Democratic Party and the California State Building and Construction Trades Council believe reducing the threshold to 55% will increase local control, allowing communities to address their own priorities without relying heavily on state or federal funds.
Who is against it?
Opponents, on the other hand, who have raised $29.4 million, led by the California Association of Realtors ($19 million), argue that easing borrowing rules could lead to irresponsible debt, with property owners bearing the burden through higher taxes. Groups like the California Chamber of Commerce and the Californian Republican Party believe bond measures should require broad consensus, not a narrow majority, and view Proposition 5 as another attempt by Democratic lawmakers to weaken taxpayer protections like those established by Proposition 13.
PROPOSITION 6: Limit forced labor in state prisons
What would it do?
Proposition 6 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from forcing inmates into work assignments or disciplining them for refusing. Instead, prisons could establish a voluntary work program allowing inmates to earn credits toward sentence reductions.
Who is in favor?
Supporters have raised $1.18 million and argue that forced labor in prisons is inhumane and often dangerous. They advocate for a voluntary work program that helps inmates gain skills and reduce sentences. Major financial backers include Patty Quillin ($250k) and the All of Us or None Action Network ($220k). Other key supporters include the ACLU and the California Democratic Party.
Who is against it?
No funds have been raised in opposition. Though it’s been reported that some critics argue that allowing inmates to refuse work could disrupt prison management, they oppose this measure as part of broader opposition to state reparations efforts. Opponents include the California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
PROPOSITION 32: California $18 minimum wage for all employers by 2026
What would it do?
Proposition 32 requires all employers to increase the state hourly minimum wage to $18. Employers with 26 or more employees would be required to raise the minimum wage to $17 for the rest of of the year and then to $18 by January 2025. Companies with 25 or fewer employees would be required to raise wages to $18 per hour by January 2026.
Wages would be adjusted based on inflation starting in 2027. If passed, Proposition 32 would bypass a currently planned minimum wage increase to $16.50 in January and give California the highest minimum wage nationwide.
Who is in favor?
Those in favor of Proposition 32 say the minimum wage increase is needed to keep pace with the cost of living. Proponents also say it will improve the economy by increasing spending and will make more Medi-Cal recipients eligible for California’s health benefit exchange, therefore saving the state millions per year in Medi-Cal costs. Supporters include the California Democratic Party, United Farm Workers, California Labor Federation, and Working Families Party California.
Who is against it?
Opponents say the measure would harm employers who already face increased costs from inflation and supply shortages and increase state expenses by raising government labor costs. They also argue that it would cost jobs, with the greatest impact on people seeking entry-level positions. The California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association, California Grocers Association, California Republican Party, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are among the measure’s opponents.
PROPOSITION 33: Allow local governments to impose rent controls
What would it do?
Proposition 33 would eliminate an existing law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
Costa-Hawkins limits local rent control to single-family homes or to any housing built after Feb. 1, 1995, and prohibits rent control laws from telling landlords how much they can charge a new renter when they first move in. Under current law, rent control can only limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters.
Proposition 33 would eliminate Costa-Hawkins, allowing cities and counties to control rents for any type of housing — single-family homes and apartments — and new renters.
The proposition does not change any existing local rent control laws and prevents the state from taking future actions to limit local rent control.
Who is in favor?
Those who support Proposition 33 argue that California’s rental prices are far too high. Nearly 30% of California renters — including teachers, police officers and firefighters — spend more than half of their income on rent. Supporters say rent control works well in many cities to help keep people housed and that Prop 33 returns decisions about rent control back to local governments.
Nearly $50 million has been raised so far in support of Proposition 33. Its biggest supporters include the 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 and UNITE HERE Local 11.
Who is against it?
According to opponents, if cities adopt strict rent control policies, it will worsen the state’s housing shortage, cause property values to decline and make developers less likely to build new housing, driving up prices in existing rental units. Critics of the proposition have also noted that it does not include protections for renters.
So far, opponents have raised nearly $93 million against Proposition 33. Its key opponents include the 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 (D-San Diego), Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Media endorsements opposing the proposition include the Southern California News Group, San Francisco Chronicle, Mercury News/East Bay Times, Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times.
PROPOSITION 34: Require certain providers to use prescription drug revenue for patients
What would it do?
Proposition 34 would require certain California healthcare providers to spend at least 98% of net drug sales revenue on direct patient care or risk losing their state license, tax-exempt status, and government contracts. The measure targets providers with over $100 million in non-care expenses, ownership of apartment buildings, and at least 500 severe health violations in the past decade — criteria that currently only apply to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. It would also formalize a state policy mandating collective negotiation for lower drug prices.
Supporters have also named Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, as a reason for the proposal. Weinstein and the foundation have been politically active, spending millions on state and local housing efforts, such as this year’s rent control measure (Prop 33), but also making political enemies in the process, including a major supporter and financier of the proposition, the California Apartment Association.
Who is in favor?
Supporters have raised $36.4 million and argue that Proposition 34 is about accountability, ensuring that federal drug discounts benefit the neediest patients. They say the measure would increase transparency and prevent abuse. The groups supporting this proposition include the California Apartment Association, ALS Association, Assemblymember Evan Low, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, and California Republican Party.
Opponents have raised $15.7 million and argue that Proposition 34 is a politically motivated effort by the landlord lobby to target Weinstein and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, violating constitutional protections against laws punishing specific organizations. They contend that the measure is illegal and unenforceable, as both the U.S. and state constitutions prohibit singling out one entity. Although the state Supreme Court allowed the measure to remain on the ballot, legal challenges are expected if it passes. The groups opposed include the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Consumer Watchdog.
PROPOSITION 35: Make permanent a tax on managed care health insurance plans
Proposition 35 aims to direct revenue from a tax on health care plans exclusively toward Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for low-income residents and people with disabilities. The measure would allocate funds to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs while prohibiting the use of these funds to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. If approved, the measure is expected to generate over $35 billion in the next four years.
Who is in favor?
Supporters of Proposition 35, who have raised $52.5 million, argue that California’s Managed Care Organization Tax has been crucial in securing federal matching funds for Medi-Cal. They believe the tax should support new Medi-Cal investments, not the state’s general fund. The measure directs funds to Medi-Cal but still allows lawmakers some flexibility to balance the budget or improve services. Supporters include the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Hospital Association, California Dental Association, California Primary Care Association, California Democratic Party and California Republican Party.
Who is against it?
Gov. Newsom opposes Proposition 35, arguing that restricting the use of tax revenue limits future lawmakers’ flexibility in balancing the state budget. Despite his stance, no official opposition group has been formed. Opponents include the League of Women Voters of California, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, The Children’s Partnership, California Alliance for Retired Americans and Courage California.
PROPOSITION 36: Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking
What would it do?
Proposition 36 seeks to amend parts of California law initially changed by Proposition 47 by reclassifying some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies.
Approved by nearly 60% of voters in 2014, Prop 47 downgraded some theft and drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and even created a specific misdemeanor shoplifting category in an effort to reduce prison overcrowding. Since then, prosecutors, police and big box retailers have blamed the law for an increase in property crimes and homelessness.
Proposition 36 would also create a new category of crime called “treatment-mandated felony.” Under this category, people who don’t contest the charges against them could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison, but if they don’t finish treatment, they could still face up to three years in prison.
Who is in favor?
Supporters argue that Proposition 36 is a way to combat homelessness, which they say is up by more than 50% since Prop 47 passed because drug addiction pushes people to the street – therefore, increasing penalties for drug possession is the only way to force people to get help.
Supporters have also argued that Prop 36 is a good middle ground between California’s previous “tough-on-crime” days, which caused overcrowded prisons in the first place.
Approximately $15 million has been raised in favor of Prop 36 by supporters like Walmart, Target, Home Depot, the California District Attorneys Association, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the California Republican Party, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce.
Who is against it?
Those who oppose Prop 36 argue that no studies on criminal justice or homelessness support the idea that harsher punishment or the threat of it prevents crime or gets people off the street. Instead, they argue Prop 36 will spend hundreds of millions of dollars in court and prison costs without actually reducing crime or poverty and would mark a return to the state’s “war on drugs.”
Opponents of Prop 36 have raised $5.3 million. Top opponents include 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 and Council on American-Islamic Relations, California.
Reporters Leo Place, Samantha Nelson, Walker Armstrong and Jordan P. Ingram contributed to this report.
