While Republicans celebrated a red wave nationally, California voters affirmed the state’s solid blue politics with Democratic candidates seeing strong returns for state and federal office.

As the prospect of a second Donald Trump presidency loomed large over California, the state elected a new U.S. senator in Adam Schiff. A Burbank Democrat, Schiff made a national name for himself in the U.S. House by leading the prosecution of Trump’s first impeachment and for his key role investigating the Jan. 6th storming of the Capitol.

Democrats were also leading the most contested races to represent California in Congress, and they were leading in races that would expand their supermajority in the state Legislature, making the state well positioned to lead the resistance to a second Trump presidency.

But California’s voters were hesitant to fully embracing a progressive agenda. They soundly passed a ballot initiative to raise criminal sentences, a measure Gov. Gavin Newsom and the progressive wing of the Legislature had opposed. They once again rejected a ballot initiative that would have permitted an expansion of rent control.

And they also ousted a progressive prosecutor in Los Angeles County, the state’s largest.

“It’s just one of these things where the allegiance to Democratic candidates and supporting Democratic candidates doesn’t always mean an allegiance to every progressive cause,” said Paul Mitchell, an election analyst.

News outlets called Democrat Kamala Harris the winner of the state’s electoral votes the moment polls closed at 8 p.m., and also swiftly called the race to claim the U.S. Senate seat long held by Democrat Dianne Feinstein. Schiff cruised to victory against Steve Garvey, a former L.A. Dodgers star seeking to become the first Republican elected statewide in 18 years. Schiff won a six-year term to replace Sen. Laphonza Butler, who decided not to run for reelection after she was appointed by Newsom to replace Feinstein, who died last year.

Democrats took early leads in four of six contested Congressional races, key seats that could keep Democrats in control of that chamber and act as a bulwark against Trump.

The Associated Press still hasn’t called who controls the House of Representatives , and it could take days or more to determine the victors in several of those contested races, particularly in California.

On ballot measures, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36, which progressives opposed, that increases sentences for certain crimes and partial vote totals show them rejecting progressive-sponsored Prop. 6 that would prohibit forced labor in prisons. Prop. 33, which would expand rent control, failed. 

Prop. 32, which would raise the minimum wage, was too close to call, as were several other statewide propositions.

Meanwhile, Democrats were leading their Republican opponents in three contested Legislative seats, which would expand the supermajority they need to raise taxes or put initiatives on the ballot without a single Republican vote. 

But should early vote totals hold, Mike Gatto, a former Democratic state lawmaker from Los Angeles, cautioned members of his party not to consider it an edict from the California electorate to embrace far-left policies in response to Trump’s return to office.

Gatto noted that California’s voters appear to have signaled through the state’s ballot initiatives a more moderate platform. Taken with the national election results, Gatto said California’s elected Democrats should be mindful of appearing too liberal. 

“I think it would be wise for California Democrats to try to moderate the agenda a little bit,” Gatto said.

In Los Angeles County, voters chose Nathan Hochman — a former federal prosecutor who ran for state Attorney General as a Republican in 2022 — to replace incumbent District Attorney George Gascón, a progressive.

Some experts say the votes show California has more nuanced political views than its national reputation as a liberal bastion suggests.

Christian Grose, professor of political science at University of Southern California, saw the mixed bag as fairly typical for California. 

“The state in general seems like it’s still going Democratic, and might swing the U.S. House to the Democrats,” he said, “while also supporting policies sometimes that are a little bit more conservative and a little bit more liberal.”

One note of caution about overnight California election results: For some of the closest races, it may be weeks before we know the final outcome. Though this has stoked mistrust among voters, the reasons are not nefarious.

Since 2020, California has mailed a ballot to every registered voter — a convenience that requires additional verification by local elections officials when it’s returned, including authenticating the signature and checking that the voter has not already cast a ballot in another jurisdiction before counting it. The counting takes significantly more manual labor, as workers must open the envelopes, extract the ballots, align them for counting machines and duplicate any damaged ballots that cannot be read.

California accepts ballots that arrive up to seven days late, as long as they are postmarked by election day, and give voters an opportunity to fix missing or mismatched signatures. These delays are deliberate, to minimize the number of legitimate voters disqualified for procedural reasons and ensure a secure and accurate count.

CalMatters Capitol reporter Alexei Koseff contributed to this story.

Californians are voting on 10 propositions in the 2024 election, covering issues from minimum wage and marriage equality to increasing penalties for some theft and drug crimes.

We’ve put together a guide to the 2024 propositions in California and we are tracking election results as they become available.

Polls close in California at 8 p.m., we’ll update the story below with results as races are called.

California Propositions Election Results 2024

Prop 2: Authorizes bonds for public school and community college facilities

Prop 3: Constitutional right to marriage

Prop 4: Authorizes bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks

Prop 5: Allows local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure with 55% voter approval

Prop 6: Eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude for incarcerated person

Prop 32: Raises minimum wage

Prop 33: Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property

Prop 34: Restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers

Prop 35: Provides permanent funding for Medi-Cal health care services

Prop 36: Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes

Scroll down to read about each ballot proposition.

Prop 2: Authorizes bonds for public school and community college facilities

Summary: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits.
Argument for: Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers. Prop. 2 meets those needs and requires strict taxpayer accountability so funds are spent as promised with local control.
Argument against: Proposition 2 will increase our bond obligations by $10 billion, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion when repaid with interest. A bond works like a government credit card-paying of that credit card requires the government to spend more of your tax dollars! Vote NO on Prop. 2.
Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
More details: Prop 2 looking to borrow money to repair schools, colleges

Prop 3: Constitutional right to marriage

Summary: Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Argument for: Proposition 3 protects Californians’ freedom to marry, regardless of their race or gender. Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from the California Constitution stating marriage is only between a man and a woman. Proposition 3 reinforces California’s commitment to civil rights and protects personal freedom. Vote YES! YesonProp3CA.com
Argument against: Proposition 3 removes all rules for marriage, opening the door to child marriages, incest, and polygamy. It changes California’s constitution even though same-sex marriage is already legal. By making moms and dads optional, it puts children at risk. This careless measure harms families and society. Vote No on Proposition 3.
Supporters: Sierra Pacifc Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California
Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella
More details: Prop 3 aiming to protect marriage rights for all

Prop 4: Authorizes bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks

Summary: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits.
Argument for: Yes on 4 for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, clean air, and protection of natural resources. California firefighters, conservation groups, clean water advocates urge YES. Accountable, fiscally responsible, with independent audits, strict transparency. Proactive approach saves money and prevents the worst impacts of devastating wildfires, smoke, droughts, and pollution.
Argument against: Bonds are the most expensive way to fund government spending. Water and wildfire mitigation are necessities, not luxuries. They should be budgeted for, not bonded. Mismanagement led to this crisis. This $10 billion bond will cost taxpayers almost $2 to repay for every dollar spent. Vote NO on Prop. 4.
Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefghters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
More details: What is Prop 4? $10 billion bond pays for long list of CA climate change projects

Prop 5: Allows local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure with 55% voter approval

Summary: Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements.
Argument for: Prop. 5 shifts local spending priorities away from state government, giving local voters and taxpayers the choice and the tools to address the challenges facing their communities. Whether it’s housing affordability, safer streets, more fire stations, or other community-driven projects, Prop. 5 empowers local voters to solve local problems. Vote YES.
Argument against: Prop. 5 changes the constitution to make it easier to increase bond debt, leading to higher property taxes. Prop. 5 shifts the financial burden from the state to local communities, increasing costs for homeowners, renters, and consumers. Politicians wrote loopholes in Prop. 5 so “infrastructure” can mean just about anything.
Supporters: California Professional Firefghters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California.
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance.
More details: California is in serious need of housing. Is Proposition 5 the solution?

Prop 6: Eliminates constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude for incarcerated person

Summary: Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work).
Argument for: Proposition 6 ends slavery in California and upholds human rights and dignity for everyone. It replaces carceral involuntary servitude with voluntary work programs, has bipartisan support, and aligns with national efforts to reform the 13th Amendment. It will prioritize rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and improve public safety, resulting in taxpayer savings.
Argument against: No argument against Proposition 6 was submitted.
Supporters: Assemblymember Lori Wilson
Opponents: None submitted

Prop 32: Raises minimum wage

Summary: Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.
Argument for: YES on Proposition 32 raises the minimum wage to $18 so more SERVICE, ESSENTIAL, AND OTHER WORKERS, and SINGLE MOMS can AFFORD the state’s COST OF LIVING. CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS INCREASED 100% since 2000 because CORPORATIONS SPIKED the PRICES OF GOODS. YES on PROP. 32 so workers can afford life’s basic needs.
Argument against: Prop. 32 was written by one multimillionaire alone, and he wrote a horribly flawed measure. Prop. 32 increases the cost of living, eliminates jobs, makes our state and local government budget deficits worse, and makes California’s complex minimum wage laws even harder for businesses and workers to understand. No on 32!
Supporters: None submitted
Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association
More details: Voters to consider raising minimum wage to $18 with Proposition 32

Prop 33: Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property

Summary: Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties.
Argument for: The rent is too damn high. One million people have left California. Rent control in America has worked to keep people in their homes since 1919. California’s 17 million renters need relief. Homeowners and taxpayers benefit from stable communities. The California dream is dying. You can help save it.
Argument against: Don’t be fooled by the latest corporate landlord anti-housing scheme. California voters have rejected this radical proposal twice before, because it would freeze the construction of new housing and could effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws. Vote No on 33 to protect new affordable housing and California homeowners.
Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether
Opponents: California Council for Afordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce
More details: Prop 33 – a ballot measure on expanding rent control

Prop 34: Restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers

Summary: Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices.
Argument for: Proposition 34 will protect patients and ensure public healthcare dollars actually go to patients who need it. Prop. 34 will close a loophole that allows corporations to spend this money on things like buying stadium naming rights and multi-million dollar CEO salaries. Protect Patients Now. Vote Yes on Proposition 34.
Argument against: Prop. 34-The Revenge Initiative. California Apartment Association, representing billionaire corporate landlords, doesn’t care about patients. Their sole purpose is silencing AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the sponsor of the rent control initiative. 34 weaponizes the ballot, is a threat to democracy, and opens the door to attacks on any non-profit.
Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles
Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta
More details: Prop 34 – the prescription drug revenue-spending measure

Prop 35: Provides permanent funding for Medi-Cal health care services

Summary: Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.
Argument for: Yes on 35 addresses our urgent healthcare crisis by securing dedicated funding-without raising taxes-to protect access to primary and specialty care, community clinics, hospitals, ERs, family planning, and mental health providers. Prop. 35 prevents the state from redirecting funds for non-healthcare purposes. Supported by Planned Parenthood, pediatricians, California Medical Association. www.VoteYes35.com
Argument against: No argument against Proposition 35 was submitted.
Supporters: Planned Parenthood Afliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics
Opponents: None submitted
More details: Prop 35 – a measure to fund Medi-Cal services

Prop 36: Allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes

Summary: Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.
Argument for: Prop. 36 makes California communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug trafficking. It toughens penalties for fentanyl and drug traffickers and “smash-and-grabs” while holding repeat offenders accountable. It targets serial thieves and encourages treatment for those addicted to drugs, using a balanced approach to fix loopholes in current laws.
Argument against: Don’t be fooled. Proposition 36 will lead to more crime, not less. It reignites the failed war on drugs, makes simple drug possession a felony, and wastes billions on prisons, while slashing crucial funding for victims, crime prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. This puts prisons first and guts treatment. Vote No.
Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California
Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice