SAN DIEGO COUNTY — Six out of the 10 state propositions on this year’s ballot are on track to become state law, with Proposition 36 garnering overwhelming support so far with over 70% of votes in favor.
The “tough on crime” ballot measure would reverse parts of the state constitution changed by Prop 47 in 2014 by cracking down again on theft and drug offenses. Specifically, the measure would convert some misdemeanors back into felonies, including theft of items worth less than $950 if the person has multiple prior convictions.
Prop 36 would also introduce tougher penalties for selling drugs like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or meth and require sentences to be served in state prison rather than county jail.
The court process would also be changed for certain drug possession offenses, with a new category called “treatment-mandated felony,” in which judges can mandate treatment for individuals with prior drug convictions.
Those who complete treatment will have their charges dropped, and those who fail could face up to three years in prison.
Originally, Prop 47 was implemented to limit prison overcrowding and reallocate savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, victim services and K-12 drop-out reduction efforts. However, many cities, including several in North County, believe this stance is too lenient and has led to a rise in repeat offenders.
Opponents of Prop 36 say it is a step backward for California, restoring a “war on drugs” and increasing prison populations while providing no funding for treatment and doing little to deter actual crime. The state Democratic Party, American Civil Liberties Union and Alliance for Safety and Justice have all come out in opposition.
Californians also passed Props 2, 3, 4, 34 and 35 and rejected Props 5, 6, 32 and 33. Read more about the results for each of these measures:
Prop 2 (Borrow $10 billion for public school and community college Facilities) — APPROVED
Prop 2, passed by 56.9% of Californians, authorizes the state to borrow $10 billion in bonds to improve public school and community college facilities.
The measure, supported by several local school districts, was brought forward as many districts face the hundreds of millions of dollars in needed campus improvements with little to no funding from the state.
Of the $10 billion, $8.5 billion will go toward K-12 schools and $1.5 billion toward 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.
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.
The measure obtained 54.14% approval in San Diego County.
Prop 3 (Right to marriage constitutional amendment) — APPROVED
Sixty-one percent of California voters and around 64% in San Diego County supported Prop 3, enshrining the right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution and removing outdated language defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
The constitution’s current language around marriage came from Prop 8 back in 2008. This language has essentially been moot 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 it nationwide in 2015.
Prop 2’s passing will not change any current laws but was brought forward as a preemptive measure after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights in 2022. At that time, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should also reconsider their past decision regarding marriage equality.
Prop 4 (Borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change) — APPROVED
The second measure on the ballot proposing $10 billion in state bonds, Prop 4, received 58% approval from California voters and 55.64% in San Diego County.
In response to concerns about fighting climate change, Prop 4 will allow the state to borrow $10 billion through a bond to pay for environmental and climate projects. This could include spending up to $1.9 billion on drinking water improvements and additional spending on wildfire prevention and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks.
Funds will be issued to local governments, tribes, nonprofits, and some state agencies, and the bond will cost taxpayers approximately $400 million annually.
Prop 5 (Lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure) — FAILED
Just over 56% of voters in California (and just over 55% in San Diego County) rejected Prop 5, which would have lowered the voter approval threshold for local government bonds from two-thirds down to 55%.
The measure aimed to ease the burden of ever-increasing state housing requirements on local cities by making it easier to obtain funding for projects while maintaining more local control. The state Democratic Party and California State Building and Construction Trades Council were among its supporters.
However, opponents, including the state Republican Party and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argued the measure would lead to irresponsible borrowing by cities and increase burdens on property owners through increased property taxes.
Prop 6 (Eliminating forced labor for incarcerated persons) — FAILED
Proposition 6 would have amended the state constitution to prohibit forcing inmates into work assignments or disciplining them for refusing and instead allow prisons to establish voluntary work programs in which inmates could earn credits toward sentence reductions.
California voters rejected the measure at 59.6%, compared to 56.28% in San Diego County. While no money was raised in opposition to the proposition, the California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposed it.
Supporters, including the state Democratic Party, have long pushed to eliminate what they say is the last legalized form of slavery in the state. While the state constitution prohibits slavery, it permits involuntary labor as punishment for a crime.
Lawmakers sought to place a similar bill on the ballot in 2022, but it ultimately failed after concerns were raised about the high cost of paying prisoners minimum wage.
Prop 32 (Raise minimum wage wage to $18) — FAILED
Fifty-two percent of California voters and just over 54% of San Diego County opposed the measure to increase the statewide minimum wage to $18 by 2026.
Proposition 32 was brought forward to bring wages more in line with the skyrocketing cost of living. It would have required a minimum wage increase to $18 by 2025 for employers with 26 or more employees and by 2026 for employers with less than 26 employees.
The measure would have given California the highest minimum wage nationwide and bypassed the planned $16.50 minimum wage set to take effect in January. However, critics argued that it would be infeasible for employers already facing high inflation and supply shortages and lead to a loss in entry-level jobs.
Prop 33 (Allow local governments to impose rent controls) — FAILED
A 61.5% majority of California voters (and 61.61% in San Diego County) rejected Proposition 33, which would allow cities and counties to control rents for single-family and apartment housing, including for new renters. Current law allows rent control to limit rent increases for existing renters.
The measure sought to eliminate the existing Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which limits local rent control to single-family homes and 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.
Landlords, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Republican Party strongly opposed the measure, arguing that it would deter property owners from constructing new housing and ultimately worsen the state’s housing shortage.
According to CalMatters, over $124 million was raised against Proposition 33, compared to around $50 million in support.
Prop 34 (Restrict spending of prescription drug revenues) — APPROVED
Just over two-thirds of California voters — 66.8% or 6.3 million — supported Proposition 34, requiring 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.
In practice, the measure specifically targets the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, as it is the only provider that meets the measure’s criteria (it applies to providers with $100 million in non-care expenses, ownership of apartment buildings, and at least 500 severe health violations in the past decade).
Opponents have argued that Proposition 34 is a politically motivated effort by the landlord lobby — particularly the California Apartment Association, a major supporter and funder of the measure — after AIDS Healthcare Foundation president Michael Weinstein spent millions on state and local housing efforts such as this year’s rent control measure (Prop 33).
Legal challenges are likely to arise because the measure is illegal and unenforceable, as both the U.S. and state constitutions prohibit singling out one entity.
Just under 56% of San Diego County voters supported the measure.
Prop 35 (Provide permanent funding for Medi-Cal) — APPROVED
Prop 35, which will allocate revenue from taxes on health care plans toward Medi-Cal, received an overwhelming approval of 66.8% statewide and 64.61% in San Diego County.
The measure is expected to generate over $35 billion in the next four years for Medi-Cal, the state’s insurance program for low-income residents and people with disabilities. Nearly a third of Californians rely on Medi-Cal.
Currently, lawmakers have the flexibility to use this tax revenue on various sources. The measure would allocate these 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.
Prop 35 was widely supported by the healthcare industry as well as both the state Democratic and Republican parties.
