Politics
Proposition 32 was just rejected. In blue California, why did the minimum-wage boost fail?
Californians, who have historically supported efforts to raise the minimum wage, were not swayed this time around.
After two weeks of postelection uncertainty, Proposition 32, the initiative to increase the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour, was defeated by a narrow margin.
The rejection was “a pretty poignant sign of the times in a state like California,” said John Kabateck, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, which had urged voters to vote no. “It is certainly sending a message that Californians across the political spectrum are fed up with higher costs and greater uncertainty on Main Street.”
Proposition 32 was declared defeated after falling just short, with 49.2% voting “yes.” The Associated Press called the race on Tuesday evening.
The outcome was the latest indication of a rightward shift in the reliably blue state, which saw a number of surprising results from the Nov. 5 election. Voters overwhelmingly supported a ballot measure to undo a decade of progressive criminal justice reform, and rejected an initiative that would have banned forced prison labor.
Opponents and economists said that by striking down the proposed minimum-wage increase, voters signaled that they were nervous about businesses raising prices to offset their added labor expenses. The prospect of paying more for consumer goods was especially unappealing after years of high inflation, which has led to a persistent feeling among many people that they’re on shaky financial footing.
“Arguments about the minimum wage are always very emotional,” said Till von Wachter, an economics professor at UCLA. “Economic issues are top of mind right now, and that can lead to a rejection of a higher minimum wage.”
Voters were closely divided on the proposition, which would have raised the minimum wage to $17 an hour immediately for larger employers and to $18 an hour starting in January. Smaller employers with 25 or fewer employees would have been required to do the same but at a slower rate: $17 an hour next year and $18 an hour in 2026.
The initiative received support in counties including Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and all nine that make up the San Francisco Bay Area. Higher-income counties were more likely to have voted yes, according to a Times review of voter results, although Orange and San Diego counties voted no.
California already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, trailing just the District of Columbia and Washington. The state’s minimum wage has doubled since 2010, most recently increasing to $16 from $15.50 in January.
Many cities — including Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Monica and Pasadena — have even higher minimums. Meanwhile the federal minimum wage has sat at $7.25 for 15 years.
As such, voters might have felt that another wage hike was unnecessary, said Chris Thornberg, an economist who founded Beacon Economics, a research and consulting firm in Los Angeles. The outcome was in part a reflection of the overall swing to the right nationwide, he said, and also about a sense of “fairness.”
“As you continue to push the minimum wage up, people are less empathetic,” he said. “The California public is at that point where they think this is just not fair to the rest of us.”
“Enough is enough. The state’s voters continue to support so-called progressive policies, but are drawing the line when it impacts their cost of living or quality of life.”
— Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the California Restaurant Assn.
In practice, the effects of raising the minimum wage on inflation and on unemployment are complex and hotly debated.
Supporters of Proposition 32 argued that increasing the minimum wage stimulates the economy, improves the standard of living for lower-income workers and reduces employee turnover. A new standard, they said, was necessary to cope with the state’s exorbitant cost of living.
The campaign estimated that more than 2 million California workers stood to benefit from the measure, which was spearheaded by millionaire investor and anti-poverty activist Joe Sanberg.
“The fight for higher wages and economic dignity for millions of California workers doesn’t end here — we’ll continue until every California worker earns enough to live and thrive,” Sanberg said in a statement Tuesday evening. “While today’s outcome was not what we expected, we are hopeful for the work ahead.”
Opponents said the measure was bad for consumers — and for workers. They worried companies would pass on the extra labor costs to customers through higher product prices, and would try to save money by laying off staff, slashing employee hours and replacing workers with automation.
“It was a very easy call to vote no on it,” said Bill Bender, 70, a restaurant operations consultant from San José. “It’s too much, too fast for the industry to absorb.”
California had a recent real-world case study in raising the minimum wage to consider, which may have factored into voters’ decision-making: In April, the state’s fast-food workers saw their pay jump to a minimum of $20 an hour, an increase established by Assembly Bill 1228.
Many cashiers, line and prep cooks, counter attendants and baristas saw as much as a 25% raise overnight thanks to the new law, which applies to California fast-food workers employed by any chain with more than 60 locations nationwide, and covers corporate-owned and franchised locations.
Even before it kicked in, fast-food giants including Chipotle, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Jack in the Box and Shake Shack warned that they were planning to raise menu prices as a result, leaving customers to eat the cost.
“Fast-food consumers are very frustrated by the price increases that they’re seeing,” said Jot Condie, president and chief executive of the California Restaurant Assn., which opposed Proposition 32. “They were just connecting the dots and saying, ‘This $18-an-hour minimum wage is going to increase prices across the board.’”
A McDonald’s in Azusa. The company warned it would raise prices after California’s fast-food minimum wage hike took effect in April.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Michaela Mendelsohn operates six El Pollo Loco locations in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. She believed that raising the state’s minimum wage would have led to a jump in prices, but said she supported Proposition 32 because it would have narrowed the gap between what she and other fast-food operators are required to pay their employees and what non-fast-food companies pay.
Since the state moved to $20 an hour for fast-food workers, Mendelsohn said transactions at her six stores are down 5% to 8% from a year ago and she has trimmed total labor hours by 8% to 10%.
David Neumark, a UC Irvine economist and national expert on minimum wages and their economic effects, said he was surprised by the outcome and that it was hard to pinpoint a single factor for the measure’s defeat.
His research over the years has shown there’s an economic tradeoff in pushing up the minimum wage: Some lower-income workers benefit from increased pay, but overall jobs are reduced as employers cut back due to higher costs, which hurts the financial well-being of the working poor and those with fewer skills.
Although it’s a commonly accepted theory that a boost in the minimum wage could lead to job loss, von Wachter of UCLA said that isn’t always the case.
“The argument that higher wages lead to lower employment does not have a lot of evidence going for it,” he said. “Instead, in situations where employers have some market power, higher minimum wages can raise employment.”
California voters are heavily Democratic and a high minimum wage generally aligns with left-wing values, but voters on both sides of the aisle didn’t adhere to typical party-line trends when it came to Proposition 32.
Randy Jeffs, a Republican from Irvine, said he didn’t vote for a presidential candidate last week. But he did vote yes on Proposition 32 after calculating that a worker paid at the higher rate would still only make $37,440 a year on a full-time, 40-hour-a-week schedule.
“If prices rise a little to pay for an $18-an-hour minimum wage, so be it,” Jeffs, 70, said. “If the wealth is to be spread about, what better way than to those willing to learn [and] work?”
But in the end, most voters decided that “enough is enough,” Condie said.
“The state’s voters continue to support so-called progressive policies,” he said, “but are drawing the line when it impacts their cost of living or quality of life.”
U.S. military forces stopped and boarded a second sanctioned tanker carrying oil from Iran in the Indian Ocean, the Pentagon said on Thursday, ramping up pressure on Tehran as the Trump administration seeks to resume negotiations to end the war.
A naval boarding team roped down from hovering helicopters and fanned out on the vessel, the M/T Majestic X, according to a Pentagon statement that included a 17-second video of the operation.
The military said the boarding was part of a “global maritime enforcement to disrupt illicit networks and interdict vessels providing material support to Iran, wherever they operate.”
Earlier this week, Navy SEALS boarded another ship in the Indian Ocean, the M/T Tifani, after the Pentagon said it was carrying oil from Iran.
Navy destroyers are also shadowing several other Iranian vessels, including the Dorena and Sevin, which had left from the Iranian port of Chabahar before the U.S.-imposed blockade began on April 13, a U.S. military official said. The Navy is directing those ships to return to an Iranian port, the official said.
With the M/T Tifani and M/T Majestic X now at least temporarily in the custody of the military, a U.S. military official said it was up to the White House to decide what to do with the sanctioned vessels and their cargo. The administration previously seized several tankers carrying illicit oil from Venezuela after a U.S. commando raid there in January that seized Nicolás Maduro, the country’s president.
“International waters cannot be used as a shield by sanctioned actors,” the Pentagon said in its statement on Thursday, adding that the department would “continue to deny illicit actors and their vessels freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain.”
Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hinted last week that the U.S. military would likely commence boarding operations like the ones this week. He said that U.S. military commanders elsewhere in the world, and especially in the Indo-Pacific region, would “actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran.”
The U.S. Navy has turned back at least 31 ships trying to enter or exit Iranian ports since an American blockade outside the contested Strait of Hormuz began about a week ago, U.S. Central Command said late Wednesday.
Last Sunday, a Navy destroyer disabled and seized the Touska, an Iranian cargo ship, after it tried to evade the blockade. It was the first time a vessel was reported to have tried to evade the U.S.-imposed blockade on any ship entering or exiting Iranian ports since it took effect last week.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained why President Donald Trump does not consider Iran’s seizure of two ships in the Strait of Hormuz a violation of the ceasefire agreement.
Leavitt made the statement during an interview with Fox News’ Martha McCallum on Wednesday just hours after Iran captured the Greek and Mediterranean-flagged vessels.
“Does the seizure of two ships — as we said, they were Greek and Mediterranean-owned ships with cargo on them, and the reports are that Iran basically seized them and then moved them into Iranian waters. We don’t know what’s going to happen to these crews. We’re not sure where all of this is going. Does the president view that as a violation of the ceasefire?” McCallum asked.
“No, because these were not U.S. ships. These were not Israeli ships. These were two international vessels,” Leavitt responded.
US FORCES ATTEMPTING TO BOARD SANCTIONED RUSSIAN-FLAGGED OIL TANKER IN NORTH ATLANTIC, SOURCES SAY
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, conducts a press briefing. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“And for the American media, who are sort of blowing this out of proportion to discredit the president’s facts that he has completely obliterated Iran’s conventional Navy, these two ships were taken by speedy gunboats. Iran has gone from having the most lethal Navy in the Middle East to now acting like a bunch of pirates. They don’t have control over the strait,” she continued.
“This is piracy that we are seeing on display. And the naval blockade that the United States has imposed continues to be incredibly effective. And, to be clear, the blockade is on ships going to and from Iranian ports. And the point of this is the economic leverage that we maintain over Iran now. While there’s a ceasefire with respect to the military and kinetic strikes, Operation Economic Fury continues, and the crux of that is this naval blockade,” she added.
The Iranian made ‘Seraj’ a high-speed missile-launching assault boat on display in Tehran on August 23, 2010, as Iran kicked off mass production of two high-speed missile-launching assault boats the ‘Seraj’ (Lamp) and ‘Zolfaqar’ (named after Shiite Imam Ali’s sword) speedboats which will be manufactured at the marine industries complex of the ministry of defense. (YALDA MOAIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said the vessels, identified as the MSC Francesca and the Epaminondas, were operating without proper authorization and had tampered with navigation systems, accusations that could not be independently verified. The ships had earlier reported coming under fire near the strait, underscoring the increasingly volatile conditions in one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.
US ‘LOCKED AND LOADED’ TO DESTROY IRAN’S ‘CROWN JEWEL’ ‘IF WE WANT,’ TRUMP WARNS
The Guard attacked a third ship, identified as the Euphoria, which had become “stranded” on the Iranian coast, Iranian media reported. It did not seize that vessel.
Ships and tankers in the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Musandam, Oman, April 18, 2026. (Reuters)
Both the U.S. and Iranian sides have targeted commercial and cargo vessels as part of a broader pressure campaign tied to stalled negotiations. U.S. forces have also moved to seize at least one Iranian-linked vessel in the region, with each side accusing the other of violating the terms of a fragile ceasefire.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global oil shipments, with roughly 20% of the world’s supply passing through it. Traffic has slowed dramatically as ships reroute or avoid the area amid gunfire, seizures and conflicting directives from both militaries.
Fox News’ Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met privately with President Trump and administration officials Wednesday to press for federal support and yet-unpaid wildfire recovery funding as the region continues to rebuild from the 2025 fires.
“This afternoon we met with President Trump and Administration officials to advocate for families who lost everything,” Bass and Barger said in a statement. “We had a very positive discussion about FEMA and other rebuilding funds as well as the support of the President to continue joining us in pressuring the insurance companies to pay what they owe — and for the big banks to step up to ease the financial pressure on L.A. families.”
Barger said the two leaders had a “high-level discussion” with the president in the Oval Office, sharing stories about what fire survivors are experiencing day to day. She added that “we left details behind with the President,” but did not specify whether Trump made any funding or policy promises during the meeting.
“First and foremost, today’s meeting was to thank the President for his initial support of infusing federal resources to expedite debris removal, as well as his recent tweet about insurance companies, which have already proven fruitful,” she said in a statement provided to The Times.
Bass was similarly reserved about the discussions, telling reporters that “we will follow up with the details,” but signaled progress is being made on federal support.
“I think what’s important is that we certainly got the president’s support in terms of, you know, what is needed, and then the appropriate people were in the room for us to follow up. And that was Russ Vought, who is the head of the Office of Management and budget,” Bass told KNX on Wednesday.
The meeting comes on the heels of a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over wildfire recovery funding, disaster response and whether the federal government should have a say in local rebuilding permitting.
California leaders, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, have accused the Trump administration of withholding billions in critical wildfire aid, prompting a lawsuit over stalled recovery funds. Officials allege political bias in the delay of billions of dollars from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Newsom visited Washington in December. When he made his rounds on Capitol Hill, he met with five lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to renew calls for $33.9 billion in federal aid for Los Angeles County fire recovery.
But the governor said he was denied a meeting with FEMA and would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to discuss the issue.
Bass, meanwhile, appears to have found a path to the president on a subject that has been paramount for her community.
The fruitful meeting comes after Trump lobbed insults at the mayor at a news conference earlier this year, where he called her “incompetent” for how she handled last year’s wildfire recovery efforts. He alleged that under Bass’ leadership, the city’s delay in issuing local building permits will take years when it should have taken “two or three days.”
California officials, including Newsom, have urged the Trump administration to send Congress a formal request for the $33.9 billion in recovery aid needed to rebuild homes, schools, utilities and other critical infrastructure destroyed or damaged when the fires tore through neighborhoods more than 15 months ago.
What Bass and Barger’s meeting with the president ultimately produces remains to be seen.
The billions in recovery aid have not yet materialized, but the meeting could potentially give those discussions new momentum.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment about the meeting.
Earlier this month, Trump criticized insurance provider State Farm on Truth Social for its handling of the devastating Los Angeles County wildfires. He accused the insurance giant of abandoning its policyholders when tragedy struck.
“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large Premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump wrote.
But the rebuke didn’t come out of the blue. It stemmed from a controversial February visit to Los Angeles by Trump administration officials.
Trump tapped Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin in an effort to strip California state and local governments of their authority to permit the rebuilding of homes destroyed in the Eaton and Palisades fires.
Within the week, Zeldin was in Los Angeles, bashing Newsom and Los Angeles officials at a roundtable with fire victims and reporters, saying that residents were suffering from “bureaucratic, red tape delays and incompetency” and that leadership was “denying them … the ability to rebuild their lives”.
During the trip, officials heard direct complaints from local leaders and fire victims about insurers being slow, restrictive and insufficient with their claim payouts.
After these meetings, Trump directed Zeldin to investigate the insurers’ responses. State Farm, facing roughly $7 billion in fire-related claims, is also under formal investigation by California’s insurance commissioner over its handling of the crisis.
Despite tensions with the administration, Bass and Barger appeared confident that progress was being made on the insurance and funding issues.
“Our job is to fight for our communities,” their joint statement concluded. “When it comes to this recovery, our federal partners are essential, and we are grateful for the support of the President.”
-
Colorado5 minutes ago
Federal judge orders release of family of man charged in Colorado firebomb attack
-
Connecticut11 minutes agoNew Haven’s Chapel Street shift from one-way to two-way traffic brings confusion, concerns
-
Delaware17 minutes agoDelaware State football player sues DeSean Jackson, school after alleged locker room assault
-
Florida23 minutes agoFlorida Lottery Powerball, Lotto, Fantasy 5 results for April 22, 2026
-
Georgia29 minutes agoWildfires rage across Georgia and northern Florida amid severe drought
-
Hawaii35 minutes agoBench in Honokaʻa to Hilo storefront: Knickknackery Hawaii brings old-time island charm to Hilo
-
Idaho41 minutes agoIdaho ranks last in per pupil spending, again – Local News 8
-
Illinois47 minutes agoArlington Heights Bears fans cheer as ‘Megaprojects’ bill passes Illinois House