Connect with us

California

California propositions: Election results for the 2024 ballot measures

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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Argument for: Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers.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

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

Copyright © 2024 KABC Television, LLC. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

California

California man charged with bringing explosives to Sacramento airport after repeatedly calling FBI tip line | CNN

Published

on

California man charged with bringing explosives to Sacramento airport after repeatedly calling FBI tip line | CNN


A California man was charged Tuesday after authorities say he brought an explosive device and other weapons through a security checkpoint at Sacramento International Airport.

Kimani Osayande Jones, who also uses the last name Jackson, attempted to bring an improvised explosive device, a knife and other bladed weapons, a torch lighter and zip ties through a TSA security checkpoint on May 30, according to court documents filed Tuesday in the Eastern District of California.

Officials believe Jones, 49, repeatedly called the FBI tip line to report he was being threatened and intimidated in the months leading up to the incident.

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office bomb technicians safely removed the explosive device and tested its powder and fuse, both of which were determined to be “viable and energetic,” officials say.

Advertisement

Investigators said the device had the potential to damage an aircraft and cause a loss of cabin pressure.

Jones’ other luggage, which had already been through security and loaded onto an American Airlines flight to Charlotte, North Carolina, was hand-searched and examined by a canine unit upon arrival, and investigators said nothing “illegal or concerning” was found.

Jones has been charged in federal court with unlawful possession of explosive material at an airport. He faces up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted.

His attorney, Meghan McLoughlin, told CNN in a statement: “There is often more to these cases than the government’s allegations, and that the criminal process will reveal Mr. Jones’ story as well.”

Multiple cell phones and repeated FBI tip line calls

The Sacramento resident went through security on May 30 wearing a face covering and blue latex gloves, court documents say.

Advertisement

When officers found the explosive device and other items in Jones’ carry-on bag, he told them he was unaware the items were in his possession and said “he would be okay with just discarding them.” When authorities informed him that explosive material could not simply be thrown away, he denied ownership of the backpack.

Jones also had five mobile phones in his possession. The cameras on each phone had been covered with painter’s tape, which authorities believe was intended to prevent his surroundings from being recorded.

One phone contained a 15-minute timer ready to start and another had a message from an unknown number on the screen stating, “we will be awaiting your call,” according to court documents.

An individual police believe to be Jones made approximately 13 calls to the FBI tip line leading up to the incident, beginning in March.

On May 24, the caller reported being followed to and from a doctor’s appointment and described what he said were threats and intimidation by another individual.

Advertisement

He said he was “being coerced in sleep to say certain phrases through digital media” and described “hearing sounds coming through walls, window panes, or even outside, attributing the outside sounds to drones,” court documents say. The call was ultimately terminated because of its “nonsensical nature.”

On the day of the incident, the same caller again contacted the FBI tip line, alleging that several individuals were threatening him throughout the past year through “cyber means.” He also referenced exercising his Second Amendment rights while denying any intention to harm others.

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office also noted it had prior contact with Jones, “wherein he had a history of being paranoid.”



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

California may take weeks to finalize primary results. ‘This is normal’

Published

on

California may take weeks to finalize primary results. ‘This is normal’


play

Although results from California’s primary election began rolling in on Tuesday, June 2, it could take days or even weeks before the final counts are certified. 

“This is normal … We have a process that by law ensures both voting rights and the integrity of elections, so I would call on all Californians to be patient,” Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber said in a June 2 news release.

Advertisement

The Golden State’s lengthy vote-counting process has “become a national narrative about California elections,” according to Thad Kousser, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.

“In California, it takes a long time to certify votes, to verify the signatures, to then count the ballots; all of that process takes a while,” Kousser said in an interview last week. “It may take a while for us to learn who the top candidates who emerge are.”

Here are some factors behind California’s lengthy vote-counting process. 

Mail-in ballots come with added verification step 

With each mail-in ballot cast, elections officials must compare the signature on a returned vote-by-mail envelope to the voter’s signature on their voter registration card. Various factors go into determining whether the signatures match, including the slant of the signature, whether it is printed or written in cursive, and the size, proportions, or scale. 

Vote-by-mail ballots were Californians’ preferred voting method in both the 2024 primary and general elections, with drop-off locations — such as ballot drop boxes and voting centers — the most popular way to return mail-in ballots. 

Advertisement

During California’s 2024 primary, more than 7.7 million votes were cast statewide, and 90 percent of those were mail-in ballots. This means election officials had to verify the signatures on more than 6.8 million ballots before they could be counted. For the November 2024 general election, 80% of cast ballots, or about 13 million, were vote-by-mail. 

Reviewing conditional voter and provisional ballots 

California also allows for same-day voter registration, also known as conditional voter registration. Voters who need to register, or re-register, within 14 days of an election can do so at their county elections office, polling place, or vote center. These ballots will be processed and counted after the county elections office has completed the voter registration process. 

In addition to conditional voter ballots, there are provisional ballots that must be verified before they are counted. Voters cast provisional ballots for a wide array of reasons, including if their name does not appear at a polling place or if they’ve made a mistake on their ballot. After a voter casts a provisional ballot, it will not be counted until election officials have confirmed that the voter is registered to vote in that county and has not already voted in that election. 

Vote-by-mail ballots can be sent on Election Day 

Though state officials recommend voters mail their ballots sooner rather than later, state law allows vote-by-mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if they arrive within a specified window afterward, thereby extending the tallying process. 

Advertisement

For the primary, ballots needed to be postmarked on or before June 2 and received by county elections office no later than June 10.  

California is, well, big 

California is the most populous state in the nation. And, as of May 18, a record total of 23,155,447 Californians were registered to vote. 

While not all registered voters are expected to have voted, county election officials estimate that more than 5 million ballots were cast statewide. 

When to expect final results 

Under state law, county elections officials are required to report the results for most ballots by June 15, or 13 days after the election, according to Weber. However, some ballots can take counties up to 30 days to count every ballot and then conduct a post-election audit. 

State law requires county elections officials to report final official results to state officials July 3. State officials then have until July 10 to certify the results of the election.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

California

California’s race for governor and other key primaries remain unsettled as vote count continues

Published

on

California’s race for governor and other key primaries remain unsettled as vote count continues


California’s crowded, protracted gubernatorial primary is going to take a little more time to settle.

The race remained too early to call Wednesday morning with 50% of the expected vote counted, according to NBC News’ Decision Desk. Three main candidates — former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, and two Democrats, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and billionaire activist Tom Steyer — are competing for two spots in the general election, with the candidate in fourth place, Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, running well behind.

Hilton had 27% support in the all-party primary with about half of votes still left to count, while Becerra had 26% and Steyer had 20%. Bianco was the only other candidate in double digits, at 11%.

In California, all candidates run on the same primary ballot in the primary and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, move on to the general election.

It’s difficult to say when it will be clear which two candidates advance to the November general election, however, due to the state’s protracted vote counting.

And with millions of ballots left to count, other key races in California remain uncalled as well, including the second runoff spot to face Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass one on one in November, several House races that could help determine the majority next year, and more.

Advertisement

In the governor’s race, all three candidates rallied supporters around the state as the evening drew on.

“We’re not there yet, but it’s looking good,” Hilton told allies. “It looks very much as if Californians really will have the chance to vote for change in November and take our state in a new direction, a fresh start for our state, which is long overdue.”

But while Hilton was narrowly in first place when he spoke, Democratic candidates were capturing the majority of the votes.

Becerra looked back at his own “underdog story,” from his immigrant relatives to his bid for governor, which took some time to catch fire.

“Almost immediately, he’s counted out, an afterthought, overlooked by many, outspent by a ton, even called along the way to drop out and save us the trouble,” Becerra recounted to his supporters. “Well, guess what? The underdog stayed in the fight. Like my parents, I never gave up.”

Steyer struck a hopeful note in his election night speech despite a deficit in the vote count.

Advertisement

“It might take some time to figure out where this is going, we’re going to wait till every ballot is counted, we’re going to give democracy a time to work, and we know we finished really strong,” Steyer said.

Major battleground districts

GOP Rep. David Valadao’s district has been one of Democrats’ top targets for years, but two Democrats are locked in a close race for the second spot in the November general election against the incumbent.

School board member Randy Villegas, who won support from national progressives, has a slight lead over state legislator Jasmeet Bains, 30% to 26%, with less than half of the expected vote tallied in the 22nd District. Valadao is comfortably in first place.

And in Northern California’s 6th District, Rep. Kevin Kiley — who was elected as a Republican and switched to become an independent this election cycle, as he runs in another newly redrawn district — is bunched up in a tight race that includes Democrat Richard Pan, a former state legislator, and Republican Michael Stansfield. Currently, Stansfield is running ahead of Pan; they spent much of Tuesday night and Wednesday morning trading the lead, which could have significant general election implications.

Meanwhile, outside California, Democrats think they might be able to challenge for one of Montana’s red-tinted congressional districts this fall, after Rep. Ryan Zinke decided to retire. But less than 2 percentage points separate Democrats Sam Forstag and Ryan Busse with more than 85% of the expected vote tallied in their primary in Montana’s 1st District.

Advertisement

Read more about Tuesday’s House primaries here.

A safe seat battle to watch

Plenty of other House districts in California — and a few elsewhere — still have unsettled primaries, but one attracted particular attention due to how nasty the campaign got.

In Southern California, where two Republican incumbents are facing off in one district due to redistricting, Rep. Ken Calvert has advanced to the general election, but Rep. Young Kim is still battling for the second spot. She leads Democrat Esther Kim-Varet in the race for second, 22% to 16%, with about half of the vote in.

Who will face Bass in Los Angeles?

While Bass is projected to advance to a November runoff in Los Angeles, it’s not yet clear whether she’ll face Republican Spencer Pratt or Democrat Nithya Raman.

Bass has about 37% of the vote to 29% for Pratt and 21% for Raman so far, with approximately half of the expected vote tallied.

Advertisement

Speaking to supporters on election night, Raman, a member of the Los Angeles City Council, said that “tonight may not give us a final answer on this race.”

“Many thousands of votes will be counted in the days ahead, and we may not get an answer we like, but regardless of what happens next, nobody, nobody can take away what all of us have built together,” she continued.

Pratt, meanwhile, was looking ahead to a potential matchup with Bass when he spoke to reporters.

“Now I have five months to get deep into every community that hasn’t heard my message to make them safe,” said Pratt, a former reality TV star. “So I’m actually very excited, because I felt very rushed. It’s a big city, and I was not able to talk to as many people as I look forward to talking to.”

Bass also projected optimism, telling her backers, “We got a lot more to go, but so far it’s looking good.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending