Author: V. Iyengar, Megaphone Editor-in-chief

Read Part 1 to learn more about California Ballot Propositions 2 through 5.

Prop 6

Removes the provision that allows involuntary servitude by incarcerated prisoners in the state constitution.

What a YES on this Proposition means: Currently, the California state constitution bans slavery in all cases except when used as punishment for a crime. If this bill is passed, prisons would no longer be able to discipline prisoners who refuse a work assignment. Instead, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would be authorized to give time credits to incarcerated people who voluntarily complete work assignments.

The state’s prison system currently employs nearly 40,000 prisoners who complete tasks such as making license plates, construction, etc. Most of them earn less than 74 cents an hour. California’s minimum wage is $16/hour, and according to a report by the California Department of Finance, it would cost the state around $1.5 billion a year to pay prisoners minimum wage. The credit system is a method of circumventing this.

Supporters: ACLU California Action, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Black Legislative Caucus, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California, California Council on American-Islamic Relations

Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Republican Party

Prop 32

Raises the statewide minimum wage, which is currently $16 per hour.

The minimum wage would be raised immediately to $17 and to $18 on January 1st, 2025 for businesses with 26 or more employees. For employers with fewer than 26 employees, the minimum wage would be raised to $17 on January 1st, 2025 and $18 on January 1st, 2026. After that, minimum wage will increase each year based on inflation. If inflation is negative, the minimum wage will not change. 

What a YES on this Proposition means: An increased minimum wage would result in better pay for workers currently making minimum wage or less than the proposed minimum wage, and likely decrease profits for businesses. 

Supporters: California Labor Federation, Unite Here, One Fair Wage, Working Families Party California, United Farm Workers, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters of California

Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association, California Grocers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, California Republican Party, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Prop 33

Rent control is a policy by which cities limit the amount a landlord can raise the rent on a property each year. However, California has imposed limits on rent-control. Cities cannot set rent control on single family homes or apartments built after 1995. Also, landlords can set whatever rate they like when new tenants move in. 

Passing Prop 33 would repeal the law that imposes these limits, allowing cities to control rent on any type of housing and for new tenants. 

What a YES on this Proposition means: Cities would be able to expand rent-control limits. In addition, property tax revenue would likely decrease.

Supporters: AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Democratic Party, Veterans’ Voices, California, Nurses Association, CA Alliance for Retired Americans, Housing is a Human Right, Tenants Together, Consumer Watchdog, Housing NOW, ACCE, UNITE HERE Local 11

Opponents: California Small Business Association, California Rental Housing Association, California Senior Alliance, California Council of Carpenters, California YIMBY, California Chamber of Commerce, California Republican Party, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Prop 34

Currently, federal law allows the government to sell pharmaceuticals to health-care providers at reduced prices if they serve low-income and at-risk patients. In turn, the health-care providers can sell the drugs at retail prices and use the profits to, hopefully, use this money to better their ability to serve disadvantaged groups. 

Prop 34 would require some California healthcare providers to spend at least 98% of the profits they gains from selling the pharmaceuticals on “direct patient care” if they want to keep their tax-exempt statuses.

What a YES on this Proposition means: This proposition would apply only to a very specific class of healthcare providers— those who spend $100 million or more on expenses other than “direct patient care” that also own and operate apartment buildings that have accrued 500 or more severe health and safety violations in the last 10 years. 

Currently, the only group this applies to is The AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), Michael Weinstein has been using the funds AHF raises to further his political agenda. For example, in 2023, he offered payments of $2 for each signature a pamphleteer was able to collect for his draft letter to Gavin Newson which sought to expand rent control.

Supporters: California Apartment Association, ALS Association, Assemblymember Evan Low, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Republican Party

Opponents: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Consumer Watchdog

Prop 35

Prop 35 seeks to make the Managed Care Organization Provider Tax, or the health plan tax, permanent. The health plan tax is imposed by states on health care services based on the number of enrollees they have in California. It was originally established to generate revenue for Medi-Cal, California’s healthcare program for low-income residents. 

What a YES on this Proposition means: This tax is set to expire in 2026. A vote “yes” on Prop 35 would make it permanent. The revenue generated form this tax is dedicated solely to Medi-Cal.

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

Opponents: League of Women Voters of California, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, The Children’s Partnership, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Courage California

Prop 36

Prop 36 seeks to be more tough on certain crimes. In 2014, Proposition 47 was passed, which changed some drug and theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. These included thefts of under $950 and drug possession. Prop 36 seeks to reverse this, by allowing judges to charge repeat offenders of such crimes with felonies instead of misdemeanors.

In addition, it allows people who have been charged with the possession of illegal drugs to be instead charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” as opposed to a misdemeanor in some cases. These people would be obligated to get treatment for their addictions, afterwhich their charges would be dismissed. A punishment for failing to complete treatment is a 3-year maximum prison sentence in state prison. 

Supporters: Walmart, Target, Home Depot, California District Attorneys Association, California, Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Republican Party, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce

Opponents: Alliance for Safety and Justice, ACLU of Northern California, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters of California, Council on American-Islamic Relations, California