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Argument for: Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers.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.
A Bay Area couple charged in the murder of a 2-year-old girl who reportedly overdosed on fentanyl earlier this year failed to appear in court last week to face the charges.
The tragic incident occurred just after 5 a.m. on Feb. 12, according to the San Francisco County District Attorney’s Office.
Officers with the San Francisco Police Department responded to an apartment in the 3800 block of 18th Street, near Mission Dolores Park, after receiving a 911 call reporting that a child was not breathing.
“Medics arrived at the location and pronounced the two-year-old child deceased,” the DA’s office said in a news release. “Medics observed signs of rigor mortis and lividity, indicating the child had been dead for several hours.”
Responding officers noted that Michelle Price, 38, the girl’s mother, was slurring her speech and had “an emotionless demeanor,” according to court documents. Investigators also observed drug paraphernalia in the apartment, including three pipes, lighters and torches, a used Narcan container, white powder ultimately identified as fentanyl, bottles of spoiled milk and stained sheets on the bed.
Price was arrested for child endangerment.
Her boyfriend, Steve Ramirez, 43, allegedly attempted to flee the apartment on a bicycle, leading police on a chase during which an officer was injured. At the time of his arrest, Ramirez was reportedly in possession of a pipe inside a bag on his bike. Two additional pipes with burnt residue were also found nearby, investigators said.
Blood samples taken from Price and Ramirez at the time of their arrests showed high levels of methamphetamine and fentanyl in their systems, according to the DA’s office.
An autopsy performed by the San Francisco Medical Examiner’s Office revealed no obvious signs of physical injury to the toddler. However, toxicology testing showed lethal levels of fentanyl, as well as naloxone, commonly known as Narcan, in the child’s bloodstream.
“The cause of death was determined to be acute fentanyl poisoning,” the release stated.
Price was initially charged with felony child endangerment, possession of fentanyl and possession of drug paraphernalia. Ramirez faced the same charges, along with an additional count of resisting, obstructing and delaying a peace officer.
Over the objections of prosecutors, both Price and Ramirez were allowed to remain out of custody ahead of their arraignments.
On April 15, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins announced an amended complaint charging the couple with second-degree murder, marking the first time such charges have been brought in a fatal fentanyl overdose case in the county.
“There wasn’t really anywhere safe for this child to be inside of this home,” Jenkins said during a press conference announcing the charges. “This is a moment in time where people have to realize that we take these situations very seriously and where, I believe, parents who knowingly possess fentanyl, who understand its lethality and the danger it poses, allow their children to be exposed to it, this is something that can come with respect to accountability if a child dies.”
At the April 16 arraignment, where both defendants failed to appear, Price’s attorney told the court she may have experienced transportation issues. An attorney representing Ramirez said he did not know his client’s whereabouts, according to KTLA’s Bay Area sister station KRON.
While both attorneys said the couple was mourning the loss of the child and struggling with addiction, Ramirez’s lawyer accused the district attorney’s office of turning the case into a media circus, claiming the publicity caused his client to panic.
The judge subsequently issued bench warrants for both Price and Ramirez. It remains unclear whether either has since been taken into custody.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
As the nation prepares for its 250th Independence Day celebration, a decades-long California Fourth of July fireworks tradition that has raised millions for local children’s programs is going dark this year after the California Coastal Commission rejected a final effort to keep it alive, citing environmental concerns to protect the bay.
“We’ve raised over the past 14 years $2 million for kids programs here in Long Beach,” event organizer John Morris told Fox News Digital, adding the July 3 event is fully funded by the local community.
“This community pays for everything — everything. City fees, and the city doesn’t give us a break. We pay $20,000 to the city for police and fire, which I’m fine with, because there’s 100,000 people enjoying the fireworks,” said Morris, a Long Beach resident and business owner.
Morris, who owns the Boathouse on the Bay restaurant, had planned a scaled-up fireworks display this year to mark America’s 250th Independence Day.
CALIFORNIA BEACH TOWN BANS THE USE OF BALLOONS
Long Beach residents have enjoyed the fireworks organized by John Morris for over a decade. (Scott Varley/MediaNews Group/Torrance Daily Breeze via Getty Images)
In January, Coastal Commission staff rejected the proposal, and last week commissioners unanimously upheld that decision despite an appeal backed by local, state and federal officials.
Regulators warned Morris last year that 2025 would likely be the final year for fireworks at the event, as they continue pushing organizers to switch to drone shows they say are more environmentally friendly.
The decision stands in contrast to other approvals by the commission, including a permit granted to SeaWorld allowing up to 40 nights of fireworks.
“They get 40 nights in Mission Bay. All I’m asking for is 20 minutes — it doesn’t make any sense,” Morris said.
Morris, 78, also pushed back on the environmental concerns cited by the commission, pointing to years of testing around the event.
CLIMATE EXECUTIVE WARNS CALIFORNIA ‘FUNCTIONALLY BANKRUPT,’ $1T SHORTFALL COULD SHAKE NATION
Due to the lack of fireworks, Morris has decided to cancel the July 3rd celebration.
“We’ve had 10 years of environmental studies,” Morris said. “We test the water before and after the fireworks and send a robotic camera into the bay to check for debris — there’s never been any. It’s been spotless.
“We’ve also had eight years of bird reports to make sure we’re not harming wildlife. We’ve never had an issue. We’ve never been written up one time. So what is it really about?”
Joshua Smith, a spokesman for the California Coastal Commission, told Fox News Digital that permits are determined on a case-by-case basis, citing environmental concerns to “protect the bay.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Organizer John Morris said environmental studies are regularly conducted to measure the impact of the fireworks show on the bay. (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
Smith said Morris was approved for a permit to hold a drone show in lieu of fireworks. Morris told Fox News Digital such a show would cost about $200,000 — roughly four times more than traditional fireworks.
Smith confirmed that SeaWorld received a permit allowing 40 nights of fireworks. When pressed on the discrepancy, he reiterated that decisions are made individually and declined to provide further details.
Morris said the loss of the fireworks show will be felt across the community, from local businesses to families who have made the event an annual tradition.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — In the wide-open race for California governor, billionaire Tom Steyer is on a spending binge.
The hedge fund manager-turned-liberal activist is using his personal fortune to saturate TV screens and mobile phones with advertising, while his competitors accuse him of trying to use his vast wealth to buy the state’s most powerful job.
Steyer’s ads — in which he promises to bring down household costs or rails against federal immigration raids — appear inescapable at times in heavily Democratic Los Angeles, the state’s largest media market. Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.
If he makes it through the June 2 primary election, Steyer could easily eclipse the 2010 record set by Republican Meg Whitman, who spent $178.5 million in a losing bid for governor, much of it her own money. At the time, it was the costliest campaign for statewide office in the nation’s history.
Even when ad buys from all his major competitors are combined, along with ad purchases by independent committees supporting candidates, Steyer is outspending the field by tens of millions of dollars.
“Billionaire money is flooding our state in an attempt to buy this election,” former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, one of Steyer’s chief rivals, warned her supporters this month.
Mail-in ballots are set to go out to voters next month. Steyer is among a crowd of candidates hoping to seize a spotlight after former Democratic U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell’s dramatic departure from the race following sexual assault allegations that he denies.
But while Steyer has ticked up in polling amid his spending splurge, he has not broken away from the field, leaving some wondering if he’s getting value for his dollars.
“If your first round of ads doesn’t move you dramatically (in the polls), the third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh and eighth rounds won’t either,” said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, who for years advised the late Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. “There is something inherently holding Steyer back.”
In recent prior campaigns for governor, at this stage a leading candidate was taking control of the race. This year, voters appear to be shrugging at a contest that lacks a star candidate among seven leading Democrats and two Republicans.
“Somehow the campaign is frozen,” Carrick added.
History shows that money doesn’t always translate into votes.
Billionaire developer Rick Caruso spent over $100 million in 2022 in his bid to become Los Angeles mayor, much of it his own money, but he was handily defeated by Mayor Karen Bass, who spent a fraction of Caruso’s total. Billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent more than $1 billion of his own money on his 2020 presidential bid before dropping out. And Steyer’s money was unable to lift him into contention in the 2020 presidential contest, when he dropped out early in the year after a poor finish in the South Carolina primary.
Steyer has never held elected office.
In a 2019 interview with The Associated Press, Steyer was asked what he would say to people who think he’s trying to buy the presidency.
“I don’t think that’s possible,” Steyer said at the time, before adding, “I’m never going to apologize for succeeding in business. That’s America, right?”
His campaign did not respond directly when asked about similar criticism facing his run for governor.
“Tom now stands as the only Democrat with the grassroots energy, institutional backing and resources to advance to the general election,” spokesperson Kevin Liao said in a statement.
The governor’s race was recently reordered by two developments: Swalwell, a leading Democrat, abruptly withdrew from the race then resigned from Congress, following sexual assault allegations. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump endorsed conservative commentator Steve Hilton.
Still, there is no clear leader.
Polling in late March and early April by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found a cluster of candidates in close competition: Democrats Steyer and Porter, Republicans Hilton and Chad Bianco, and Swalwell. Other candidates were trailing. The polling was conducted before Swalwell withdrew.
Democrats have feared the party’s large number of candidates could lead to them getting shut out of the general election in November. That’s because California has a primary system in which only the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.
Leading Democrats are all claiming to have picked up support since Swalwell’s exit. Steyer nabbed one plum endorsement, when the influential California Teachers Association, which previously backed Swalwell, recommended him.
In his ads, Steyer promises to “abolish” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has been staging raids across California. In another, he laments the state’s punishing cost of housing, “Everybody needs an affordable place to live,” he says.
-
Culture36 minutes agoWhat America’s Main Characters Tell Us
-
Lifestyle42 minutes agoWe beef with the Pope and admire the Stanley Cup : Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!
-
Technology54 minutes agoThis pasta sauce wants to record your family
-
World1 hour agoMassive 7.5-magnitude earthquake hits off Japanese coast, tsunami alert issued
-
Politics1 hour agoUS military announces another deadly strike against ‘narco-terrorists’
-
Health1 hour agoCancer tied to woman’s vaping habit since age 15 as she’s now given just months to live
-
Sports1 hour agoPolice report details Zachariah Branch’s arrest days before NFL Draft over sidewalk incident
-
Technology1 hour agoBMW puts humanoid robots to work building EVs