2024 California Ballot Proposition
Voter Guide
Are you a California voter who wants to know more about this year’s ballot propositions and how they might impact you?
Written, illustrated, and designed by CCA students, this voter guide breaks down each proposition in clear, everyday language, making it easier to grasp the issues at hand and make informed decisions on election day.
Proposition 2
-
A bond is debt security.
Bonds provide the borrower with external funds to finance long-term investments.
-
Proposition 2 endeavors to put a $10 billion bond towards K-12 school buildings and community colleges
-
Schools will become safer for children and young adults
Ensures repair of damages from natural disasters, ensuring safety and quality of education
Increases access to an affordable college education
Helps returning veterans
-
Director of the California Teachers Association, David Goldberg
Executive director of the California School Nurses Organization, Sheri Coburn
CEO of the Community College League of California, Larry Galizio
-
Concerns that California is running out of money
If taxation continues to rise, it will make it harder for people to afford necessities such as groceries and transportation
May saddle future generations with debt
-
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Assemblyman Bill Essayli (R, CA)
Proposition 3
What is Proposition 3?
Proposition 3 aims to amend the state constitution to ensure that the right to same-sex marriage is protected under state law.
This proposition would make it illegal for any future state or local laws to prohibit or restrict same-sex marriages. By codifying the right to marry regardless of gender, California would be reinforcing protections for LGBTQ+ couples, even if federal laws or Supreme Court decisions change in the future.
For young adults and students, this proposition directly impacts the protection of our freedoms and ensures that future generations will have the same rights to marry whomever they love, regardless of societal or political shifts. It’s a vote for protecting the civil rights of all Californians, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals, and ensuring they have the same freedoms and protections under the law as other citizens.
History of Proposition 3
Proposition 3 builds on previous efforts to protect marriage equality in California. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage. However, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional, legalizing same-sex marriage in California once again.
With concerns that the current federal protections for gay marriage might be reversed, advocates of Proposition 3 are pushing to enshrine marriage equality within California's constitution. The proposition is authored by a coalition of civil rights organizations and LGBTQ+ advocates, who aim to prevent a rollback of progress made over the past decade.
-
Supporters of Proposition 3 include prominent LGBTQ+ advocacy groups like Equality California, civil rights organizations, and progressive politicians. They argue that the proposition is necessary to protect the rights of all Californians and prevent the state from being subject to changes at the federal level that could endanger marriage equality. Many young adults and students, particularly those within LGBTQ+ communities or who support social justice, are likely to view this proposition as crucial to ensuring equal rights for all.
-
Voting "Yes" on Proposition 3 means you support amending California's constitution to explicitly protect the right to same-sex marriage, ensuring that future legal changes at the federal level cannot undermine marriage equality in the state.
-
Opposition comes mainly from conservative organizations and politicians who either oppose same-sex marriage on moral or religious grounds, or believe that marriage should be governed by federal law rather than state amendments. Opponents argue that the federal protections granted by the Supreme Court ruling are sufficient, and some see this as an unnecessary step that could create tension between state and federal law and “override” them.
-
Voting "No" means you believe the current legal framework is enough to protect these rights and oppose adding this amendment to the state constitution.
Proposition 4
Click here to view!
Proposition 5
Making it easier to vote for bonds to build affordable housing and public infrastructure
Background
Housing in California is very expensive; the average home costs twice the national average. In response, local governments usually use bonds to pay for housing assistance programs. Bonds are also used to pay for public infrastructure projects
such as roads, hospitals, fire stations, libraries, and more. These bonds, called general obligation bonds, currently require two-thirds approval of local voters.
What is Proposition 5?
Proposition 5 will lower the voting requirements for general obligation bonds from two-thirds to just 55 percent. The measure also requires specific steps for local governments to take to monitor the use of general obligation bond funds. Some of these oversight measures include conducting annual, independent financial and performance audits and appointing a citizens’ oversight committee to help supervise spending.
History
Proposition 5 was authored by Democratic Assembly member Cecilia
Aguiar-Curry, with multiple edits made since 2017 until its finalization for the
2024 election. One of the edits includes a ban on local governments to buy up single-family homes to convert them into affordable units. This was done in order to prevent the California Association of Realtors from opposing it. However, the money was invested in the opposition campaign by the association before the agreement was still allowed to pass.
-
Easier to fund housing assistance and infrastructure
Local voters have more say over what gets funded
Increases accountability of tax spending with audits and supervision
-
Will increase debt and raise property taxes
“Infrastructure” and “Affordable Housing” are loosely defined, meaning funding could be used on almost anything, against taxpayers' wishes
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Click here to view!
Proposition 34
One of the trickier propositions
on this year’s ballot!
Proposition 34 sounds like a healthcare proposition, but at its core, it’s actually a revenge initiative, targeted against
a single organization:
the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Let’s break it down.
The stated goal of Proposition 34 is to require healthcare providers
to use extra revenue to pay for
direct care for low-income
and at-risk patients.
This seems like a good thing!
But because of how this proposition is written, it would potentially only apply to a single healtchare provider:
the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Because at its core, Proposition 34 is actually about rent control.
HISTORY
In 1992, Congress passed a piece of federal legislation called 340b
which requires pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to provide discounts
to providers who serve low-income and at-risk patients.
If those patients have insurance, the healthcare provider can bill insurance for the full (not discounted) price of the drug. Providers can also sell discounted drugs to patients who are not low income at full price.
This creates revenue.
The idea was that healthcare providers would use that extra revenue to provide free or subsidized healthcare services to their patients.
But Congress didn’t legally require them to use this revenue in this way.
Prop 34 was allegedly designed to address this loophole
by requiring that providers spend 98% of this net revenue on direct patient care for low-income patients.
However.
Proposition 34 would not apply to all healthcare providers. Specifically, it applies to healthcare providers who:
Have spent at least $100 million over a decade on purposes that do not qualify as direct patient care;
Own (or have previously owned) one or more
apartment buildings; andThese apartment buildings must have been collectively cited for at least 500 health and safety violations.
If this seems oddly specific…that’s because it is!
With these stipulations, Prop 34 would likely only apply to one provider:
the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
How would this impact them?
The AHF has an annual budget of about 2.5 billion dollars. Most of their revenue is generated by their network of 62 pharmacies, which use the 340B program to make money
and fund the AHF.
So how is Prop 34 actually about rent control?
Supporters of Prop 34 don’t like that the AHF donates substantial funds to political causes, specifically measures that would expand rent control (including this year’s Prop 33). Prop 34 would essentially defund the
AHF, preventing them from donating to pro-rent control causes - but also preventing them from providing essential healthcare and housing to 16,000 Californians living with HIV and AIDS and tens of thousands more patients who rely on them for STD screenings.
Who supports it:
California Apartment Association
California Republican Party
ALS Association
Assemblymember Evan Low
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Southern California News Group
Who opposes it:
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
Consumer Watchdog
San Francisco Chronicle
Mercury News/East Bay Times
San Diego Union-Tribune
Los Angeles Times
Proposition 35
According to the Los Angeles Times, Proposition 35 is “the most impenetrable measure on the Nov. 5 ballot”!
Proposition 35 would make an existing tax on health insurance providers permanent. This tax helps fund Medi-Cal, a program that provides healthcare to Californians with low-income or disabilities. Currently, the tax is temporary and set to end in 2026.
If passed, Prop 35 would ensure that the state continues collecting the tax indefinitely (subject to periodic approvals).
More than 15 million Californians (40% of the state’s population!) are enrolled in Medi-Cal, but reimbursement rates are so low that healthcare providers are beginning to refuse to treat Med-Cal patients. Medi-Cal needs funding.
So this Proposition seems cool!
But opponents, including governor Gavin Newsom, argue that making the tax permanent could limit future flexibility in the state’s budget, which would make it harder to reallocate funds during financial downturns. He supports continuing the tax for now, but wants to allow some flexibility in case the state experiences financial problems down the line.
The editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle also oppose Prop 35, arguing that voters should not be responsible for making complicated financial policy decisions - leave that to the policy experts, Legislature, Governor, and staffers who are experts on this kind of thing.
Supporters—including major healthcare associations and both the Democratic and Republican parties—believe the dedicated funding is essential to improving access to care, especially for vulnerable populations.
Supporters
California Medical Association
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
California Hospital Association
California Dental Association
California Primary Care Association
California Democratic Party
California Republican Party
Sacramento Bee
Opponents
Governor Gavin Newsom
League of Women Voters of California
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
The Children’s Partnership
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Courage California
Mercury News/East Bay Times
San Francisco Chronicle
San Diego Union-Tribune
Southern California News Group
Los Angeles Times
Proposition 36
About This Project
This voter guide was written, designed, and illustrated by students from the
California College of the Arts course Art and the Machine (Fall 2024).
With support from a CCA@CCA grant, students were asked to create an interactive, multidisciplinary website that breaks down each of California’s ten 2024 state ballot propositions so they are comprehensible to a broad and diverse audience in advance of the election on November 5th, 2024. Students worked together to research each proposition, examine their histories and funding sources, and design and build a website that would help voters to better understand what they are voting on.
Art and the Machine is taught by professor Natalie Pellolio and offered by the History of Art and Visual Culture department at CCA. This course explores how modern and contemporary artists engage with technology in their practice, either by relying on machines to make their work or by using their work to interrogate technology’s impact on modern life.
For Fall 2024, Professor Pellolio has tailored this course to focus specifically on the effects of art and technology on American civic engagement. Her hope is that this project will empower students to think about art as a mobilizing force, as they discuss artists whose work seeks to address or solve problems exacerbated by technological progress, such as climate change, racial and economic inequities, and threats to democratic systems.