California
California propositions: Election results for the 2024 ballot measures
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Argument for: Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers.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
Copyright © 2024 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thousands of immigrant drivers whose commercial driver’s licenses are set to expire next month were left bewildered and disappointed when news spread that California was planning on reissuing the licenses — only to learn federal regulators had not authorized doing so.
Amarjit Singh, a trucker and owner of a trucking company in the Bay Area, said he and other drivers were hopeful when word of California’s intentions reached them.
“We were happy [the California Department of Motor Vehicles] was going to reissue them,” he said. “But now, things aren’t so clear and it feels like we’re in the dark.”
Singh said he doesn’t know whether he should renew his insurance and permits that allow him to operate in different states.
“I don’t know if I’m going to have to look for another job,” he said. “I’m stuck.”
Singh is one of 17,000 drivers who were given 60-day cancellation notices on Nov. 6 following a federal audit of California’s non-domiciled commercial driver’s license program, which became a political flashpoint after an undocumented truck driver was accused of making an illegal U-turn and caused a crash in Florida that killed three people.
The nationwide program allows immigrants authorized to work in the country to obtain commercial driver’s licenses. But officials said the federal audit found that the California Department of Motor Vehicles had issued thousands of licenses with expiration dates that extended beyond the work permits, prompting federal officials to halt the program until the state was in compliance.
This week, the San Francisco Chronicle obtained a letter dated Dec. 10 from DMV Director Steve Gordon to the U.S Department of Transportation stating that the state agency had met federal guidelines and would begin reissuing the licenses.
In a statement to The Times, DMV officials confirmed that they had notified regulators and were planning to issue the licenses on Wednesday, but federal authorities told them Tuesday that they could not proceed.
DMV officials said they met with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which oversees issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses, to seek clarification about what issues remain unresolved.
A spokesperson for the Department of Transportation, which oversees the FMCSA, would only say that it was continuing to work with the state to ensure compliance.
The DMV is hopeful the federal government will allow California to move ahead, said agency spokesperson Eva Spiegel.
“Commercial drivers are an important part of our economy — our supply chains don’t move and our communities don’t stay connected without them,” Spiegel said. “DMV stands ready to resume issuing commercial driver’s licenses, including corrected licenses to eligible drivers. Given we are in compliance with federal regulations and state law, this delay by the federal government not only hurts our trucking industry, but it also leaves eligible drivers in the cold without any resolution during this holiday season.”
Bhupinder Kaur — director of operations at UNITED SIKHS, a national human and civil rights organization — said the looming cancellations will disproportionately impact Sikh, Punjabi, Latino and other immigrant drivers who are essential to California’s freight economy.
“I’ve spoken to truckers who have delayed weddings. I’ve spoken to truckers who have closed their trucking companies. I’ve spoken to truckers who are in this weird limbo of not knowing how to support their families,” Kaur said. “I myself come from a trucker family. We’re all facing the effects of this.”
Despite hitting a speed bump this week, Kaur said the Sikh trucking community remains hopeful.
“The Sikh sentiment is always to remain optimistic,” she said. “We’re not going to accept it — we’re just gonna continue to fight.”
Two Republican candidates are leading the latest poll in California’s gubernatorial race amid concerns that Democrats could be locked out of the general election in the solidly blue state.
Newsweek reached out to the California Democratic and Republican parties for comment via email.
Why It Matters
California is a solidly Democratic state that rarely elects Republicans to statewide office. However, Democrats are facing a potential challenge in next year’s gubernatorial race. The Golden State uses a unique “jungle primary” system where all candidates, regardless of their party, appear on the same ballot and the two candidates who receive the most votes advance to the general election. This means there is a possible, even if unlikely, scenario where two Republicans could advance to the general election and lock Democrats out of the race.
A string of recent polls suggests that could be a possibility in the race next year to replace retiring Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, who cannot run for a third term due to term limits.
What To Know
California’s gubernatorial race has drawn the interest of several well-known Democrats in the state including Representative Eric Swalwell, former Representative Katie Porter, former Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra, businessman Tom Steyer, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Controller Betty Yee.
By contrast, two well-known Republicans—Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and commentator Steve Hilton—are in the race.
The math problem for Democrats would be if the high number of Democrats split the vote in a way that allows Bianco and Hilton to narrowly advance to the general election. Early polls show that as a possibility, though there is still time for Democratic voters to coalesce around specific candidates before June’s primary.
On Thursday, pollster Civic Lens Research released a survey showing Bianco and Hilton advancing to the general election. Hilton led with just under 18 percent of the vote, while Bianco followed with about 14 percent.
Swalwell placed third with about 12 percent support, while Porter and Steyer followed with 9 and 7 percent support, respectively. Still, many voters are still unsure of who they are going to support—and could be decisive in the race. Thirty-one percent said they were undecided in the poll.
The poll surveyed 400 likely California primary voters via a web questionnaire sent by text message between December 14 and 16.
Other polls have also showed a Democratic lockout as a possibility. An Emerson College poll, which surveyed 1,000 likely voters from December 1-2, showed Bianco leading with 13 percent, while Hilton and Swalwell were tied at 12 percent. An FM3 poll showed Hilton lead with 18 percent, followed by Bianco and Swalwell at 17 percent. It surveyed 821 likely voters from November 30 to December 7 and had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Zev Yaroslavsky, a former member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and director of the Los Angeles Initiative at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Newsweek polls are “largely reflecting name identification and party identification.”
“Voters are not focused on the June primary yet,” he said. “With only two Republicans in the mix along with half a dozen or more well-known Democrats, it is not surprising that most of the candidates are bunched up.”
Democratic and undecided voters are likely to “consolidate behind one or two prominent candidates” by the spring, Yaroslavsky said, noting that other candidates will either drop out or “just be relegated to electoral irrelevancy.”
“The top Democrat will assuredly receive far more than 13% in June. Republicans have a ceiling of what they can hope to get in California, and when Democratic and independent voters coalesce around on or two candidates, at least one of the leading Democratic candidates will come in first or second and advance to the general election. At that point, it’s the Democrats’ to lose,” he said.
What People Are Saying
Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, told Newsweek in November: “Poll after poll shows Californians are tired of the decades of failure and corruption by Democrats, and they are turning to Republicans for real solutions and leadership on issues like affordability, public safety, and homelessness.”
Rusty Hicks, chair of the California Democratic Party, told Newsweek in November: “We look forward to electing another Democrat as California’s next Governor in 2026.”
What Happens Next?
The primary is set for June 2, 2026, so candidates will spend the first half of next year making their case to voters to convince them they are the best option to lead the nation’s most populous state.
California
California orders Tahoe Truckee schools to leave Nevada sports over transgender athlete dispute
The California Department of Education is requiring the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District to follow state law in another clash over transgender athletes in youth sports in the state.
Currently, student-athletes in Tahoe Truckee Unified play sports in Nevada because of how close they are. But Nevada now bans transgender athletes in girls’ sports, which is against California state law.
So after decades of playing in Nevada, California’s Department of Education is requiring the Tahoe Truckee Unified School District to compete in California to comply with state laws that allow student athletes to compete based on their gender identity.
David Mack is the co-founder of Tahoe Pride and describes the new youth sports divide in the Tahoe region.
“So no one’s happy, it’s really sad, it’s quite tragic in that way,” Mack said. “People feel really upset that the school moved so fast on this. They feel blindsided, they feel not listened to, and then other people, like the trans kids, are getting steamrolled over like they’re not recognized in this argument.”
Nevada state lawmakers passed a law in April requiring a mandatory physical signed by a doctor to deem the athlete male or female based on their birth sex.
“This is a politically manufactured issue to try to divide people,” Mack said.
The Tahoe Truckee Unified School District is responding to the California Department of Education with a solution that the district legally join the California Interscholastic Federation in 2026, but continue to play in the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association through 2028.
When asked if transgender athletes would be able to compete while operating in the NIAA, the district said it’s “still in the early stages of this transition, and many details are still being developed.”
In an October letter addressed to the California Department of Education, the school district’s attorney, Matthew Juhl-Darlington, said the Tahoe Truckee Unified is “not aware of any transgender youth who have expressed interest in participating in its 2025-2026 athletic programs.”
“While the NIAA recently updated its polices to define ‘male’ and ‘female’ based on sex assigned at birth and not as reflected in an individual’s gender identity, as required under California law, the District is interpreting and implementing this policy in a manner consistent with California’s legal requirements,” Juhl-Darlington said in the letter.
California Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley is opposed to the state order, arguing the weather conditions in Tahoe need to be considered.
“So in order to compete in a California league, you have to deal with this snowy weather and the travel dangers and so forth,” Kiley said.
The school board was expected to explain its solution to both join California’s CIF while playing in the NIAA through 2028 to parents and students Wednesday night at a board meeting.
So far, the California Department of Education has not said if it will accept this as a solution.
Detroit Lions running backs open up about life on and off the field
San Francisco could vote again on whether to allow cars on the Great Highway
Dallas Stars blow out Anaheim Ducks as offense explodes for third straight win
Why did Carson Beck transfer to Miami? Revisiting ex-Georgia QB’s move
MWRA’s solution to sewer overflows stirs outrage – The Boston Globe
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Video: ‘It Didn’t Have to Happen This Way:’ U.Va. Faculty Call for Review of Police Response to Protests
Trump administration touts ‘most secure border in history’ as 2.5 million migrants exit US
How the reparations loan for Ukraine fell apart at the eleventh hour
Trump’s push to end transgender care for young people opposed by pediatricians
Takeaways from an eventful 2025 election cycle
Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies
-
Iowa5 days agoAddy Brown motivated to step up in Audi Crooks’ absence vs. UNI
-
Iowa7 days agoHow much snow did Iowa get? See Iowa’s latest snowfall totals
-
Maine4 days agoElementary-aged student killed in school bus crash in southern Maine
-
Maryland5 days agoFrigid temperatures to start the week in Maryland
-
Technology1 week agoThe Game Awards are losing their luster
-
South Dakota6 days agoNature: Snow in South Dakota
-
New Mexico3 days agoFamily clarifies why they believe missing New Mexico man is dead
-
Nebraska1 week agoNebraska lands commitment from DL Jayden Travers adding to early Top 5 recruiting class