Alters the state constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry and removes language stating marriage is between a man and a woman.
No cost.
A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thus keeping Proposition 8 (2008), which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, in the California Constitution.
Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond.
A “yes” vote supports issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects.
A “no” vote opposes issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects.
Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount of increased borrowing would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowed funds would be repaid with higher property taxes.
A “yes” vote supports lowering the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.
A “no” vote opposes lowering the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.
Uncertain
A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime and authorize the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award credits to incarcerated persons who voluntarily participate in work assignments.
A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.
Raises the minimum wage to $17 for the remainder of 2024, and $18 an hour starting in January 2025 — a bump from the current $16. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be required to start paying at least $17 next year, and $18 in 2026. If voters say “yes,” California will have the nation’s highest state minimum wage.
Uncertain
A “yes” vote supports increasing the state minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026 for all employers and thereafter adjusting the rate annually by increases to the cost of living.
A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative, thereby maintaining the existing law which was designed to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour for all employers by January 2023 and increasing it annually according to inflation.
Prohibits rent control on single-family homes and houses completed after February 1, 1995. The act also prohibits rent control laws that mandate what a landlord can charge a tenant when they first move in. By repealing the act, the initiative would allow cities and counties to limit rent on any housing and limit the rent for a first-time tenant. Any local laws currently inoperative under Costa-Hawkins would take effect upon its repeal.
Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.
A “yes” vote supports:
• repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (1995), thereby allowing cities and counties to limit rent on any housing and limit the rent for first-time tenants and
• adding language to state law to prohibit the state from limiting “the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.”
A “no” vote opposes repealing Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prohibits rent control on single-family homes and houses completed after February 1, 1995.
Requires some California healthcare providers to spend at least 98% of net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” Providers that don’t risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.
Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs.
A “yes” vote supports:
• requiring health care providers that spent over $100 million in any 10-year period on anything other than direct patient care and operated multifamily housing with over 500 high-severity health and safety violations to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care;
• penalizing violators of the initiative with loss of tax-exempt status and licenses to operate health insurance plans, pharmacies, and clinics; and
• permanently authorizing Medi-Cal RX in state law.
A “no” vote opposes this initiative to penalize health care providers who spend revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on purposes other than direct patient care.
Requires the state to spend the money from a tax on health care plans on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities. The revenue would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs. It would also prevent legislators from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upwards of $35 billion.
• In the short term, increased funding for Medi-Cal and other health programs between roughly $2 billion and $5 billion annually (including federal funds). Increased state costs between roughly $1 billion to $2 billion annually to implement funding increases.
• In the long term, unknown effect on state tax revenue, health program funding, and state costs. Fiscal effects depend on many factors, such as whether the Legislature would continue to approve the tax on health plans in the future if Proposition 35 is not passed by voters.
A “yes” vote supports permanently authorizing a tax on managed care organizations based on monthly enrollees, which is set to expire in 2026, and requiring revenues to be used for increased Medi-Cal programs.
A “no” vote opposes permanently authorizing a tax on managed care organizations based on monthly enrollees, thereby allowing it to expire in 2026.
