To help every voter in San Diego County participate in the upcoming election, Alliance San Diego provides this nonpartisan voter guide on the state ballot measures. The decision on whether to support or oppose these measures is yours, as in you, the voter. We provide this information to support you in making informed decisions about the issues that affect your family, your community, and your future.
The ballot measure summaries below are drawn from analyses by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a California government office that provides nonpartisan analysis of all state ballot measures, and also the Voter Guide by CalMatters, a nonprofit media outlet providing nonpartisan news. You can check out those sources for a deep dive on the measures.
Download the Guide to California Ballot Measures
PROP 2 - INVESTS $10 BILLION TO BUILD AND MODERNIZE SCHOOLS
BACKGROUND: There are about 10,000 public schools and 115 community colleges that educate students in California. The state often partners with local districts to build new schools when enrollment grows or to renovate existing ones that are old or unsafe. They use bonds to pay for the costs. Bonds are a way that the state borrows money from investors and then repays the money back to investors plus interest over time. This is a way to spread out the costs like people do to pay for big expenditures like a car or a house. Under California law, the state cannot sell bonds (borrow money) without voter approval. When a bond is approved by voters, we are allowing the state to borrow the money, but the state retains the ultimate decision of whether to sell the bond (borrow money) or not. Over the past 20 years, the bulk of funding for schools and community colleges has come from voter-approved bonds.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 2 would allow the state to sell a $10 billion bond (borrow that amount) and repay it over 35 years. The estimated annual payment on the bond would be $500 million a year, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the state budget. Of the $10 billion, $8.5 billion would go toward public schools and $1.5 billion would go toward community colleges.
A YES vote on this measure means: The state can issue a bond (a form of long-term financing) for $10 billion to build and renovate public schools & community colleges.
A NO vote on this measure means: The state can not issue the bond.
PROP 3 - PROTECTS MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN CALIFORNIA
BACKGROUND: The federal courts have said that same-sex couples can marry, but outdated language in the California Constitution still says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 3 updates the California Constitution to match what the federal courts have said about who can marry.
A YES vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution would be updated to match who currently can marry, based on Supreme Court decisions. Protects same-sex marriage.
A NO vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage would not be changed. If court decisions were reversed, same-sex marriage would be illegal.
PROP 4 - INVESTS $10 BILLION TO FUND FLOOD PROTECTION, CLIMATE RESILIENCY
BACKGROUND: The state pays for many activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change. Sometimes the state pays up front for natural resources and climate activities with money it already has. In other cases, the state pays for these activities by using bonds. Bonds are a way that the state borrows money from investors and then repays the money back to investors plus interest over time. This is a way to spread out the costs like people do to pay for big expenditures like a car or a house. Under California law, the state cannot sell bonds (borrow money) without voter approval. When a bond is approved by voters, we are allowing the state to borrow the money, but the state retains the ultimate decision of whether to sell the bond or not.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 4 allows the state to sell a $10 billion bond for natural resources and climate activities and repay it over 40 years. The annual payments would be $400 million, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the state’s budget. Much of the bond money would be used for loans and grants to local governments and entities. Of the $10 billion, $3.8 billion would go towards increasing the amount and quality of water for people to use and reducing the risk of flooding and $2.7 billion would go towards wildfire prevention and reducing the risks from sea-level rise. Another $1.9 billion would go toward protecting and restoring natural areas and expanding and repairing local and state parks. An additional $1.3 billion would go towards restoring the state’s shift to renewable sources of energy and reducing the effects of extreme heat, and $300 million would go to helping farmers respond to climate change and become more sustainable.
A YES vote on this measure means: The state can issue a bond (a form of long-term financing) for $10 billion to invest in infrastructure to respond to the causes and effects of climate change.
A NO vote on this measure means: The state can not issue the bond.
PROP 5 - LOWERS THE VOTE THRESHOLD TO FUND HOUSING PROJECTS
BACKGROUND: Housing in California is very expensive, with home prices about twice the national average and rents about 50 percent higher than in other states. Local governments often use bonds to fund housing assistance programs that help low-income residents afford housing. They also use bonds to pay for infrastructure around housing like roads, hospitals, and fire stations. Under the California Constitution, in order for local governments to sell bonds (borrow money), they must get the approval of two-thirds of the voters.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 5 changes the rules in the California Constitution for approving local government bonds. It lowers the voting requirement for approving bonds used for housing assistance or public infrastructure from two-thirds to 55 percent. Proposition 5 also requires local governments to monitor how these bond funds are used. They must conduct annual independent financial and performance audits. Additionally, citizens' oversight committees will be appointed to help supervise the spending of these funds.
A YES vote on this measure means: Local bonds to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, or public infrastructure could be approved with 55% of the vote.
A NO vote on this measure means: Local bonds to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, or public infrastructure would continue to need approval by 66.67% (two-thirds) of voters.
PROP 6 - END SLAVERY IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
BACKGROUND: The California Constitution bans “involuntary servitude” except as a punishment for crime. Involuntary servitude commonly refers to forcing people to work against their will. It is another term for slavery. People in state prisons and county jails can be required to work, and about one-third of prisoners work in jobs like cooking and cleaning, often earning less than $1 per hour. Prisoners can also earn "time credits" to reduce their sentences. Refusing to work can lead to consequences like losing the ability to make regular phone calls.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 6 changes the California Constitution to ban involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. It also bans state prisons from disciplining people who refuse to work. However, Proposition 6 does not stop prisons from giving people time credits for working.
A YES vote on this measure means: Involuntary servitude would not be allowed as a punishment for crime. State prisons would not be allowed to discipline prisoners who refuse to work.
A NO vote on this measure means: Involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as a punishment for crime in California.
PROP 32 - INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $18 AN HOUR
BACKGROUND: California’s minimum wage is currently $16 per hour, though some local governments have set higher rates. Minimum wage laws do not apply to independent contractors and self-employed people. The state adjusts the minimum wage annually based on inflation (when prices go up), with specific rules if inflation is negative or exceeds 3.5 percent. Additionally, certain industries, like fast food, have higher minimum wages, with most fast food workers earning at least $20 per hour.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 32 increases the minimum wage to $18 per hour for all employees in California by 2026, with annual inflation adjustments beginning in 2027.
A YES vote on this measure means: The state minimum wage would be $18 per hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices go up.
A NO vote on this measure means: The state minimum wage would be about $17 per hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices go up.
PROP 33 - REPEAL STATE LAW TO ALLOW FOR LOCAL RENT CONTROL
BACKGROUND: Rent in California is very high, sometimes more than double the national average, because there isn't enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. This competition among renters drives up prices. Some cities have local rent control laws that limit rent price and the amount that a landlord can increase the rent, but the Costa-Hawkins Act currently in effect limits rent control by exempting single-family homes, properties built after 1995, and initial rents for new tenants. In San Diego County, there are no local rent control laws, and under state law, landlords can increase rent up to 10 percent annually.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 33 eliminates the Costa-Hawkins Act, which would then allow local governments to adopt rent control laws. This means cities and counties could decide to control rent prices for any type of housing and limit rent increases when new renters move in. The proposition doesn't change existing local rent control laws directly; cities and counties would need to update their laws. It also prevents the state from limiting local rent control in the future.
A YES vote on this measure means: State law would no longer prohibit local rent control, allowing cities and counties to decide to adopt their own rent control laws if they choose.
A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to prohibit cities and counties from enacting local rent control.
PROP 34 - LIMIT HOW HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS SPEND MONEY
BACKGROUND: A federal program gives discounts on drugs to certain healthcare providers. These healthcare providers generate revenue to serve low-income people by charging private health plans and government programs more than what they paid for the drugs given to them at discounted prices. They cannot do this with Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities, because California law prevents healthcare providers from charging Medi-Cal more than the discounted price of the drug.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 34 would make “affected healthcare entities” spend at least 98 percent of their revenue from the federal drug discount program on direct patient care or face penalties. According to CalMatters research, the definition of an “affected healthcare entity” is narrowly defined and seems to apply to one organization in particular — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which backs Proposition 33 addressing rent control.
A YES vote on this measure means: Certain healthcare entities, primarily the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, would be limited in how they spend revenue.
A NO vote on this measure means: These new rules would not go into effect.
PROP 35 - MAKE A TEMPORARY TAX PERMANENT TO FUND MEDI-CAL
BACKGROUND: Since 2009, California has generated between $7-8 billion annually from a specific tax on certain health plans, known as the “health plan tax." The state uses this revenue mainly for Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities. However, this tax is not permanent; it has to be renewed by the State Legislature and approved by the federal government. The most recent approval was in 2023 and the tax will end in 2027 unless renewed.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 35 takes the first step to make the health plan tax permanent starting in 2027. The second step would be federal approval. Proposition 35 would require the state to spend the money from the tax on healthcare plans on Medi-Cal. The revenue would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs. The ballot measure would also prevent lawmakers from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending, so that funding for Medi-Cal expands to meet the needs of California’s low-income community members and people with disabilities.
A YES vote on this measure means: An existing state tax that funds Medi-Cal for low-income Californians & people with disabilities would become permanent.
A NO vote on this measure means: An existing state tax that funds Medi-Cal would end.
PROP 36 - INCREASE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DRUGS AND THEFT
BACKGROUND: In 2014, voters passed Proposition 47 which made some non-violent theft and property crimes, where the value does not exceed $950, into misdemeanors. It also made some simple drug possession offenses into misdemeanors which also meant that past convictions for these charges may be reduced to a misdemeanor by a court. And lastly, Proposition 47 also required any savings the state gained as a result of this measure to be spent on truancy prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services.
PROPOSAL: Proposition 36 reverses some of the punishment reductions made by Proposition 47. Specifically, it turns some misdemeanors back into felonies, including a non-violent theft of items worth $950 or less. It also lengthens felony sentences by up to three years for theft or property damage if multiple people are involved. Additionally, it creates a new penalty of three years in prison for people who possess certain drugs, have two or more prior drug convictions, and fail to complete a drug treatment program.
A YES vote on this measure means: People convicted of nonviolent drug & petty theft offenses could face increased punishment and longer prison sentences. This would increase prison costs and decrease funding for local treatment programs.
A NO vote on this measure means: Punishment for drug & theft crimes would remain the same.