Statewide Ballot Measures—The First Five

Your Nov. 5 ballot will include 10 measures for Californians to decide on, ranging from bond measures to cover repairs in public school buildings to repealing the 2008 same-sex marriage ban, which, though not enforceable, remains on the books. Other issues, including climate-action and prisoner labor measures, will also be presented to voters for important, consequential decisions.

We neatly summarize each proposition and let you know who supports or opposes each one to help you make your choices this November. These measures will determine how Californians will live their daily lives, so every vote counts. Remember: Not voting is still a vote—for the other side.

Here are the first five (Propositions 2‒6) of November’s 10 ballot propositions; the remaining five (Propositions 32‒36) will follow in next month’s issue:

Proposition 2: Public School Buildings Bond Measure

Nutshell: Provides $10 billion for construction and modernization of K-12 public schools and community colleges, to be financed via bonds.

Background: Funds from the most recent bond measure, passed in 2016, are pretty much depleted. Voters rejected a March 2020 $15 billion school bond measure, with only 47% approval. A simple majority is needed to pass, and this time, legislators have trimmed the cost of the proposed bond to $10 billion.

School districts urgently need to repair dilapidated buildings, upgrade science labs, modernize septic systems, fix leaks and the like. Some school districts suffer from long-festering and potentially dangerous conditions of disrepair.

Gov. Gavin Newsom was faced with a choice between two bills—this one, or one that included funding for public universities. In the end, AB 247, the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair and Safety Bond Act of 2024, whose chief author was Al Muratsuchi (D‒Torrance), won out.

The bill originally asked for $14 billion, but the total was capped at $10 billion, which will encourage voters to cover the most urgent needs of public schools across the state. The proposition allows for $8.5 billion for K-12 renovations and new construction—10% of which is to be dedicated to smaller school districts—while community colleges are allocated $1.5 billion.

Who supports it: Association of California School Administrators, California School Boards Association, California Teachers Association, Coalition for Adequate School Housing, California Retired Teachers Association, Community College League of California and most California school districts

Who opposes it: Some poorer school districts oppose the measure because they feel the funding mechanism—school districts receive matches for what they can raise themselves—entails a built-in disparity, as wealthy districts are able to raise money more easily than poorer ones. Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm, while recognizing the need for investment in public schools, says that the measure “prioritizes higher-wealth students and districts,” as affluent districts can raise more cash and thus receive equally high funding matches.

Proposition 3: Right to Marry—Repeal Proposition 8

Nutshell: Replaces language in the state Constitution that still defines marriage as “between a man and a woman,” with the more general concept of “the right to marry.”

Background: Despite current federal protection of same-sex marriage and the unenforceability of a state law still on the books that bans same-sex marriage, proponents warn that this precautionary step is necessary because of potential action by the reactionaries and conservatives on the Supreme Court, who have hinted at repealing the right to marry.

A “yes” vote repeals Prop 8 (passed in 2008), a ban on same-sex marriage, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. In addition, a “yes” vote affirms that the state Constitution will declare that “the right to marry is a fundamental right.”

Predictably, reactionaries and religious zealots are opposed to the measure, asserting that God has already defined marriage and, furthermore, that it would somehow encourage sibling or parent-child marriages.

Who supports it: California Labor Federation, California Democratic Party, ACLU of Northern California, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Who opposes it: California Family Council, California Capitol Connection

Proposition 4: Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air

Nutshell: A $10 billion bond measure to fund response to climate-related disasters, such as fires, drought, flooding and extreme heat, as well as water infrastructure projects and state and local parks.

Background: Californians in recent history have approved four of six parks-and-environment measures. This measure will require that 40% of the bond revenue will be used to fund projects in lower-income communities or those communities affected by environmental disasters. If approved, Prop 4 would be California’s biggest-ever investment in addressing climate change.

Who supports it: California Labor Federation, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and dozens of climate-related and civil justice organizations under the umbrella nonprofit, ClimateBondNOW

Who opposes it: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Proposition 5: Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment (making it easier to pass housing and road bonds)

Nutshell: Prop 5 will make it easier to finance critically needed affordable housing and public infrastructure projects, such as parks and roads, by lowering the number of votes necessary to win approval for bond measures for financing, from 66.67% to 55%.

Background: Most local bond measures require an onerous two-thirds rate of voter approval to pass. By lowering the required percentage of votes to just 55% to win approval, this measure aims to ease approval for financing of urgently needed affordable housing and other projects. The current “supermajority” approval requirement rate of 66.67% dates from the passage of 1978’s Prop 13, the brainchild of Republican tax curmudgeon Howard Jarvis.

Who supports it: California Labor Federation, California Democratic Party, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, League of Women Voters of California, California State Association of Counties

Who opposes it: California Republican Party, California Association of Realtors, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Proposition 6: Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment (ending forced prison labor)

Nutshell: A “yes” vote will amend the state Constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. Incarcerated individuals who participate voluntarily in work assignments could receive credits from the Department of Corrections.

Background: Most state constitutions, though a steadily increasing number of them have already voted for repeals, contain language that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude “except to punish crime,” which has meant that incarcerated people can legally be forced to perform labor of various kinds.

State constitutions reflect the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery “except as punishment for a crime.” This short but consequential clause served the interests of the slaveholding South because it effectively perpetuated enslavement of Blacks, whose behavior was criminalized by code—selling cotton after sunset or swearing, for example, could result in arrest and incarceration, and thus in legally enforceable forced labor—resulting in effective re-enslavement.

If Prop 6 passes, any labor performed by incarcerated individuals would be voluntary only. A new state law says that the state will not be required to pay prisoners minimum wage, but that wages for such work will be determined by the Department of Corrections.

Who supports it: California Labor Federation, ACLU of California, Abolish Slavery National Network

Who opposes it: No official opponents are known, though some Republican lawmakers have complained that any wages paid by the state might add up to a high annual cost.

Watch for next month’s issue for summaries of Propositions 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36.