Analysis, Discussion, Debate: 2024 California Propositions

Wanted to create a thread to discuss amongst California voters the ten propositions on our ballots this year.

An excellent video summarization of what's on the ballot this year, which I found relatively even-handed and unbiased:


My take:

Prop 2 - $10B for education construction. I wrangled a lot with this but ultimately voted Yes. I was one of the 'No' voters in the 2020 proposition asking for $15B because I thought that was too soon after a $5B funding bill just four years earlier. The lower $10B ask, a few years later, seems more reasonable to me. The source of wrangling was the 35 year bond repayment period which financially I am uncomfortable with. I'd prefer we absorb the cost during the next 5-10 years.

Prop 3 - Removing a ban on same sex marriages from the state constitution. This was a no-brainer Yes for me. I don't want a ban on same-sex marriages in our State Constitution's text, whether it's enforceable or not.

Prop 4 - $10B for climate projects. I wrangled with this one as well but ultimately decided No. A 40 year repayment plan is even less palatable than Prop 2, and that there is no inclusion of a repayment mechanism pushed it over the line for me. I do think there are good investments to be had in this space but I couldn't convince myself that the juice was worth the squeeze.

Prop 5 - Reducing majority % required for local cities and counties to approve bond measures. I voted Yes because I couldn't rationalize a no... but would love to hear dissenting opinions!

Prop 6 - I voted Yes to ban forced prison labor.

Prop 32 - State minimum wage to $18/hour. I support this because it's relatively more phased than the $20/hour for fast food workers and that worked out well. Voted Yes.

Prop 33 - Removing limits on local governments to impose rent controls. I struggled with this one as well, given that we have investment properties but also think keeping rent prices in check is important. Ultimately, I voted No because I do not trust my own particular local government (Santa Clara County) to rationally and pragmatically exercise this power, given what I've seen to date.

Prop 34 - The meme proposition of this cycle - the apartment owners pissed off by Prop 33 hit back with Prop 34. I suggest watching the video of 33+34 (see link above) if you don't know the hilarious pissing match between an health care non-profit making billions off others, and the apartment owners who want them to stay in their lane. That said, I voted Yes here... setting aside this being a revenge proposition, I believe on principle that non-profits should not be taking advantage of steep federal discounted drug costs then billing full price in the manner the author of Prop 33 is doing. Yes, I realize the petty rationale behind this whole situation, but I can't disagree with it.

Prop 35 - Making MCO tax permanent. This was a complicated one to learn about. I decided to vote No since I don't mind the status quo of requiring a state renewal every 3 years. Also, I want more propositions focused on how to reduce the cost of health care, rather than those that direct yet more dollars to a medical industry with opaque pricing and no functional free market competition. Happy to reconsider in 2026.

Prop 36 - Reverse the 2014 prop converting many felonies to misdemeanors. I strongly disagree with theft of $950 being by definition no worse than a misdemeanor, have never supported it, and therefore I voted Yes for tougher penalties for drug and theft crimes.

Would love to hear thoughts from other CA voters.

cc: @Gatsby and @Felis Leo whom I'd be particularly interested in hearing from.

Thanks for this, I'm new-ish to Southern California so I appreciate the info. So many propositions!

I'm not a Californian, and I don't agree with all of your positions. That said, I do think you did a nice job of explaining the issue and why you voted as you did. Good work.

Kblaster49 said:

Thanks for this, I'm new-ish to Southern California so I appreciate the info. So many propositions!

Click to expand...

Each year I have to set aside several hours to study these many propositions. There are so many, and it's not always obvious what the right vote is. The dozens of flyers in our mailboxes are functionally useless, often with competing "Vote Yes on Proposition X to Save the Puppies" and "Vote No on Proposition X to Destroy Nazis" messages that are unhelpful and bewildering.

Minimum wage increase is going to fail by a small margin because California Dems decided not to bother promoting. Didn't see one AD on TV. Dems won't learn a damn thing because they'll most likey increase their Super Majority.

Well, the results are largely in.

Prop 2 - $10B for education construction. I was uncomfortable with this but voted yes, and it appears voters agreed as it passed.

Prop 3 - Removing a ban on same sex marriages from the state constitution. No-brainer Yes for me and for the majority of Californians--passed. I am disappointed that 5.5 million people in our state couldn't find it in their hearts to remove text banning a same-sex marriage from our state constitution.

Prop 4 - $10B for climate projects. I was too uncomfortable with funding for this one and voted No, however it still passed.

Prop 5 - Reducing majority % required for local cities and counties to approve bond measures. I voted Yes and so did most Californians. Passed.

Prop 6 - I voted Yes to ban forced prison labor but a slim majority disagreed with me and it was rejected. I wonder how many people understood this proposition which did not prohibit prison labor which still can be used as a carrot e.g. good behavior, only the forced use of it.

Prop 32 - State minimum wage to $18/hour. I voted Yes because it felt fairly gradual, however an even slimmer majority rejected it.

Prop 33 - Removing limits on local governments to impose rent controls. Voted No and a clear majority of California voters agreed and it was rejected for the 3rd time.

Prop 34 - And the revenge proposition -- which I could not find a fault with, hence my Yes vote - turned out to pass by a tiny majority - passed! The authors of Prop 33 just got hit with a double whammy, losing not only 33 but a significant percentage of their funding going forward.

Prop 35 - Making MCO tax permanent. I voted No not wanting to make this tax permanent but the vast majority of California disagreed with me, giving this one a resounding pass.

Prop 36 - Reverse the 2014 prop converting many felonies to misdemeanors. I supported this with a Yes and like 35, a significant majority of California wanted this one too, resulting in another resounding pass.

Overall, no major surprises from my perspective. I thought 33/34 might play out like this and I was right. I also expected to be on the losing side of 4. I didn't think 35 would win so resoundingly, I thought 6 would pass, and I'm disappointed by how close 3 was.

phoenix2020 said:

Prop 5 - Reducing majority % required for local cities and counties to approve bond measures. I voted Yes and so did most Californians. Passed.

Click to expand...

Prop 5 Failed 55.2% No

Prop 6 Prison Labor Ban Failed without anyone arguing against in Voter Guide. That's unusual and a big fail on behalf of Prop 6 sponsors.

Prop 32 Minimum wage increase failure is all on Dem Party who inexplicably didn't bother to highlight. Could've driven turnout and helped in close House races.

Prop 34 passage was another fail on California Dem Party. Considering who was behind the bill and who they were targeting.

CimpleMan said:

Prop 5 Failed 55.2% No

Click to expand...

I missed that - it was a complete misread of the results and %s on my part. No excuses. Thanks!

phoenix2020 said:

I missed that - it was a complete misread of the results and %s on my part. No excuses. Thanks!

Click to expand...

No problem, not surprised it failed. I'm sure they'll try again.

CimpleMan said:

Prop 6 Prison Labor Ban Failed without anyone arguing against in Voter Guide. That's unusual and a big fail on behalf of Prop 6 sponsors.

Prop 32 Minimum wage increase failure is all on Dem Party who inexplicably didn't bother to highlight. Could've driven turnout and helped in close House races.

Prop 34 passage was another fail on California Dem Party. Considering who was behind the bill and who they were targeting.

Click to expand...

I agree on 6. I know at least several voters who voted no because they believed that the bill banned voluntary work programs. Communication on what should have been a no-brainer was quite poor.

I was a bit surprised by 32 because the fast food $20 bar has actually worked out fairly well across the state, and the phased minimum wage increases struck me as remarkably restrained for California, which as a somewhat fiscally conservative voter appealed to me. That said, I agree that over the over 100 flyers I received in the mail during this cycle, not a single one targeted 32. This was another one that didn't get highlighted much.

As for 34, well, I know exactly what it was ("revenge proposition") but when I thought about it in isolation, I could not rationalize why I might disagree with it. I don't like the idea of how the people behind 33 fund their operations, no matter how much I might appreciate and value the services that they provide. I knew that 33 would fail (again) and 34 had a good chance of doing serious harm to a non-profit whose services are generally valued, but at the end of the day I felt 34 made sense regardless of who it was targeting and who it was sponsored by.

phoenix2020 said:

I agree on 6. I know at least several voters who voted no because they believed that the bill banned voluntary work programs. Communication on what should have been a no-brainer was quite poor.

Click to expand...

Think some voters just see California Dems as soft on crime and some saw the prop as complimentary to Prop 36. I voted for and didn't expect to fail. When there's no opp in Voter Guide the expectation it's going pass.

phoenix2020 said:

I was a bit surprised by 32 because the fast food $20 bar has actually worked out fairly well across the state, and the phased minimum wage increases struck me as remarkably restrained for California, which as a somewhat fiscally conservative voter appealed to me. That said, I agree that over the over 100 flyers I received in the mail during this cycle, not a single one targeted 32.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing some believed was going to cause more inflation. No attempt on Dem Party to explain the issue and how beneficial for those people getting an increase. Didn't fail by much, so abit more effort could've made the difference.

phoenix2020 said:

As for 34, well, I know exactly what it was ("revenge proposition") but when I thought about it in isolation, I could not rationalize why I might disagree with it. I don't like the idea of how the people behind 33 fund their operations, no matter how much I might appreciate and value the services that they provide. I knew that 33 would fail (again) and 34 had a good chance of doing serious harm to a non-profit whose services are generally valued, but at the end of the day I felt 34 made sense regardless of who it was targeting and who it was sponsored by.

Click to expand...

Spent alot of time reading pros and cons on the issue of rent control and the Prop 33. The thing I came back to is the Prop didn't enact rent control just gave cities to more abilty to enact. Opponents made the better argument and not surprised it failed. Will say rent control is a tool cities should have to some extent.

Prop 34 - For me who was behind Prop which was LandLord Lobby was telling. The argument they made for passage didn't ring true for me, but was effective nonetheless.

CimpleMan said:

Think some voters just see California Dems as soft on crime and some saw the prop as complimentary to Prop 36.

Click to expand...

Wanted to reword. Saw the Prop as weakening penalties and aligned with Prop 36 in increasing penalties.

I grew up in the rural part of the state, even if I do not live there still.

Living in Santa Clara county is a FAR different experience than growing up in Modoc, Yuba or Tehama.


Forcing a very high minimum wage upon the rural parts of the state makes small businesses very difficult to operate. You can buy a palace in some of these counties for the same amount as a shack where you live, and the wages should reflect this.

Gardener said:

I grew up in the rural part of the state, even if I do not live there still.

Living in Santa Clara county is a FAR different experience than growing up in Modoc, Yuba or Tehama.


Forcing a very high minimum wage upon the rural parts of the state makes small businesses very difficult to operate. You can buy a palace in some of these counties for the same amount as a shack where you live, and the wages should reflect this.

Click to expand...

Exactly how small of a business are you talking about? Highly dependent on how many employees and type of business you're talking about.

Not dismissing argument you're making but also have to consider positives and negatives in totality.

CimpleMan said:

Exactly how small of a business are you talking about? Highly dependent on how many employees and type of business you're talking about.

Not dismissing argument you're making but also have to consider positives and negatives in totality.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about restaurants, hairdressers, mom and pop shops and the like -- places that have, perhaps, a dozen employees or fewer. s
I have no problem in the urban areas at all because I have lived in them, but the one size fits all approach tends to disadvantage when there is a great disparity in cost of living.

Gardener said:

I'm talking about restaurants, hairdressers, mom and pop shops and the like -- places that have, perhaps, a dozen employees or fewer. s
I have no problem in the urban areas at all because I have lived in them, but the one size fits all approach tends to disadvantage when there is a great disparity in cost of living.

Click to expand...

In every State there's places like California where the cost of living differs, but if you leave the issue to individual cities to raise minimums you're likely end up having no raises at all depending on who controls government in those localities.

No doubt some businesses will struggle more with increased minimums, but how much is going to vary greatly and some can raise prices to offset. A $2 an hour for each employee who makes the current minimum amounts to $80 per week based on a 40hr work week. Not insignificant if you have slim margins of profitability so understand your point, but like I said you have to take positives and negatives in totality. You do understand the positives of giving raises to the least paid even in places where the cost of living is less right?

Raised minimums initiatives have passed by voters in several States including Red States. Although it's true the minimums are much lower than California's it's reflective of the cost of living in some of those States. California voters rejected an increase which means those at the bottom will continue to absorb costs increases including putting a roof over their head. Think Democratic Party failed those at the bottom of the wage scale. The working class.