Politics
2024 California propositions voter guide: minimum wage, crime, marriage, healthcare, rent and more
In addition to a precarious presidential election and high-stakes U.S House races, California voters in November will also weigh in on a slew of statewide initiatives that could significantly shape policy and affect the lives of millions of residents.
Ten measures will be on the ballot and will ask voters if they support raising the minimum wage, cracking down on crime, banning forced prison labor, capping rent and much more.
Golden State voters are accustomed to legislating by the ballot and are often faced with a list of initiatives as part of the state’s direct democracy process. But this year especially, political parties are hopeful that some of the causes will help draw voters to the polls to check other boxes, too, said Mindy Romero, founder of the Center for Inclusive Democracy, a nonpartisan research organization focused on elections.
“Sometimes there are people who are not interested in the top ticket that may solely come out because of their cause,” said Romero, who is a political sociology professor at USC.
Altogether, campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures have collected tens of millions of dollars in contributions.
The number of initiatives put to voters could have been much higher, but a flurry of last-minute negotiations in the state capitol led to measure proponents agreeing to pull their proposals in favor of legislation, including a move to make financial literacy a high school graduation requirement. The remarkable round of deal making comes as state leaders have fought to tackle a massive budget deficit and worry about bogging down voters with a crowded ballot.
Here are the initiatives voters will officially see on their ballot in November:
Proposition 2
This bond measure would authorize the state to borrow $10 billion to modernize K-12 schools and community colleges.
The funding could be used to repair outdated school buildings and to upgrade libraries, heating and cooling systems and broadband internet.
Proposition 3
This measure would remove outdated language in the state Constitution that still defines marriage as between a man and woman and instead replace it with a broad “right to marry.”
While the constitutional clause is unenforceable, and same-sex marriage remains federally protected, proponents of the measure say it’s a necessary precaution in case of potential rulings from a conservative Supreme Court majority former President Trump helped appoint.
Proposition 4
This bond measure would authorize the state to borrow $10 billion to help fund the response to climate-related disasters such as drought, flooding and extreme heat. It would also help to ensure clean drinking water.
If approved by voters, it will be the largest investment in combating climate change in California history.
Proposition 5
This measure would make it easier for local governments to approve bonds and tax measures that fund affordable housing and some public infrastructure.
Proposition 5 would lower the required vote threshold to approve those measures from a two-thirds supermajority to 55%.
Proposition 6
This measure would ban involuntary servitude and end mandatory work requirements for state prisoners.
The proposed constitutional amendment is part of a reparations package for descendants of African Americans enslaved in the U.S.
Proposition 32
This measure would increase California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and annually adjust it for inflation.
The proposal comes after the state’s politically powerful unions secured $25 an hour for healthcare workers and $20 an hour for fast-food workers and as cities including West Hollywood have moved ahead of the state minimum to as much as $19.08 an hour.
Proposition 33
This measure would allow cities and counties to enact rent control.
Proposition 33 would repeal a 1995 law called the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which generally prohibits local governments from limiting rental rates as issued by landlords.
Proposition 34
This measure would require that healthcare providers spend most of the revenue they get from federal prescription drug discount programs on direct patient care.
It would apply only to a very specific subset of doctors who have spent more than $100 million over a decade on “anything other than direct patient care.”
Proposition 35
This measure would provide permanent funding for Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid, which pays for health services for low-income residents.
Right now, a tax on managed health insurance plans that funds the program is set to expire in 2026.
Proposition 36
This measure, backed by law enforcement agencies, would impose harsher sentences for drug possession and retail theft. It would turn some crimes involving fentanyl and repeated shoplifting that are currently misdemeanors into felonies.
Proposition 36 aims to roll back parts of Proposition 47, which a decade ago recategorized some low-level offenses.
Politics
Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.
The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House.
The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.
The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Politics
Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power
One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.
Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.
“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”
The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.
While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.
The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.
And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.
That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.
It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.
That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.
That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.
That is true in the streets of America today.
Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Politics
Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.
The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.
USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)
“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.
The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs.
HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.
‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL
The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud. (AP Digital Embed)
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.
-
Detroit, MI7 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology4 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX5 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Dallas, TX2 days agoAnti-ICE protest outside Dallas City Hall follows deadly shooting in Minneapolis
-
Iowa4 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Delaware2 days agoMERR responds to dead humpback whale washed up near Bethany Beach
-
Health6 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Nebraska4 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska