California Globe Voter Guide: 2024 Ballot Measures Broken Down to Just the Facts

Bonds are the most expensive way to fund government spending – they should be budgeted for, not bonded

By Katy Grimes, September 24, 2024 8:42 am

California voters have many decisions to make November 5, 2024, and not just on a President. California voters are facing 10 ballot initiatives dealing with rampant theft and drug trafficking (Prop. 36), limiting rent control laws (Prop. 33), several bonds (more taxation/government spending) for building new or renovating existing public school and colleges (Prop. 2), bonds to build low-income housing (Prop. 5), water, wildfire prevention (Prop. 4), permanent funding for Medi-Cal, California’s welfare/low-income health care (Prop. 35), and more…

The bottom line voters want to know – “What will screw me over, and what will make my life better?”

PROPOSITION 32: Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute

Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it annually for inflation.

Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.

Supporters: None submitted

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 are going up.

Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association.

A NO vote on this measure means: The state minimum wage likely would be about $17 per hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up.

HJTA says: raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising government labor costs.

PROPOSITION 33: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.

HJTA says: Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020.

The CAA says: Repeals the state’s most important rental housing protection law. Costa-Hawkins exempts specific properties, such as single-family homes and new construction, from local rent control and safeguards vacancy decontrol, allowing landlords to adjust rents to market rates after a tenant moves out and a new renter moves in.

Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether

A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.

Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce.

A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.

California voters have rejected this radical proposal twice before, because it would freeze the construction of new housing and could effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws.

PROPOSITION 36: This is the Reform Prop. 47 initiative: Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute.

Rampant retail theft throughout California cities has caused thousands of small business and store closures. Escalating fentanyl overdoses are killing young Californians at a stunning rate. Proposition 36 would be much tougher on third offenses and offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail.

This is the initiative that Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats threatened to prepare their own competing crime (Prop 47) initiative for the Nov 2024 ballot, as well as trying to undermine the qualified initiative with their own package of bills to “combat crime.” Democrats had 10 years to address the escalating crime because of Prop. 47, but did not until Prop. 36 qualified.

Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California

A YES vote on this measure means: People convicted of certain drug or theft crimes could receive increased punishment, such as longer prison sentences. In certain cases, people who possess illegal drugs would be required to complete treatment or serve up to three years in prison.

Opponents: Diana Becton (Soros backed DA), District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice

A NO vote on this measure means: Punishment for drug and theft crimes would remain the same – rampant theft and crimes would continue.

Prop. 36 makes California communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug trafficking. It toughens penalties for fentanyl and drug traffickers and “smash-and-grabs” while holding repeat offenders accountable. It targets serial thieves and encourages treatment for those addicted to drugs, using a balanced approach to fix loopholes in current laws.

To read the full text of this article, go to https://californiaglobe.com/articles/california-globe-voter-guide-2024-ballot-measures-broken-down/.

The JL Group helps clients navigate the complex and often confusing areas of workplace investigations, organizational assessments, and risk management training. We hope this voter guide summary has been helpful in assessing the impact of proposed laws and regulations in the workplace. More questions? Contact us at www.jlgroup.net.