Updates on California proposals, two of which are still in tight battle – Daily News

California voters weighed 10 ballot propositions this year, and two remained virtually deadlocked as additional ballot results were released Thursday.

Both Proposition 32, addressing the state’s minimum wage, and Proposition 34, addressing health care spending, had margins of less than 2%, with ballots still being counted statewide.

These benefits were very different from the large benefits in favor of passing Propositions 3, 35, and 36.

Here’s more information on all 10 proposals on the ballot as of Thursday at 5 p.m.:

LIVE ELECTION RESULTS: See the latest vote count chart.

Proposal 2 (Education Funding)

Four years after rejecting a $15 billion bond proposal to pay for new school buildings, California voters appear poised to break the cycle by passing Proposition 2, a $10 billion version of a similar school construction proposal, according to the ballot. counted on Thursday. The “yes” vote was 57.1%.

Supporters of Proposition 2 note that low-income school districts in California rely heavily on bonds to pay for new construction and expand new services such as early childhood education programs.

Opponents argue that Proposition 2 is discriminatory because low-income areas would receive a larger share of the money.

Provision 3 (Marriage Equality)

A proposal to change the state constitution to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right already guaranteed by federal law, won by a wide margin, according to published vote tallies: 61.3% to 38.7%.

The idea of ​​codifying same-sex marriage rights has gained traction in California and other states since the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which allows states to set their own abortion rules. As part of that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court reconsider the 2013 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and others echoed the sentiment.

In addition to enshrining marriage equality in California, Proposition 3 would also repeal Proposition 8, the 2008 law banning same-sex marriage. Although federal law preempts Proposition 8, the law remains in effect.

Proposal 4 (Financing of environmental projects)

Voters are poised to approve a proposal to add about $10 billion in bond debt to pay for various climate change projects. The “yes” vote was 58.2%.

Among other things, Proposition 4 would allocate $3.8 billion in new bond proceeds to improve water quality and projects aimed at mitigating the effects of floods and droughts, which are more pronounced as California’s ping-pong between wet and dry monsoons.

Supporters argue the bonds are needed because the state recently spent about $10 billion on environmental programs. Opponents note that the bonds are expensive and would cost state taxpayers $400 million a year over 40 years.

Regulation 5 (Affordable Housing)

Voters opposed a proposal to make it easier to pass tax bonds, lowering the approval threshold from 66% to 55%, according to data released Thursday. The absence of votes was 56.1%.

Proponents say giving one-third of voters a veto over any tax increase is fundamentally undemocratic. While Proposition 5 will not completely eliminate this imbalance, it will significantly reduce it.

Opponents of Proposition 5 say local taxes tend to fall disproportionately on property owners, so the tax burden itself is undemocratic. They also argue that the tax’s high approval threshold prevents what they see as poor spending decisions.

Regulation 6 (forced slavery)

It looks like prisoners in California will continue to work for little or no pay as data released Thursday showed voters opposed Proposition 6, a proposal to change the state constitution to outlaw forced labor in state prisons. “No” on Proposition 6 led from 54.6% to 45.4%.

The rules proposed by Proposition 6 would end the practice of punishing prisoners by forcing them to work as cooks, janitors, construction workers and firefighters, among other jobs. Proposition 6 calls for allowing inmates to work such jobs as a way to earn credit for their free time.

Supporters say forced labor in state prisons is a relic of slavery and that the practice disproportionately affects people of color. Opponents argue that changing prison regulations is a form of reparations that is not possible at a time when the state is facing budget shortfalls.

Regulation 32 (Increase in Minimum Wage)

It’s still unclear whether lower-wage workers will get raises in California starting this month, as Thursday’s vote count still showed only a slight lead – 51.9% to 48.1% – among those who would reject Proposition 32.

The current minimum wage in California is $16 an hour, although a complex array of benefits based on industry type and geographic location already means a slightly higher paycheck for many workers.

Proposition 32, however, would extend the increase to about 2 million people who currently earn the state minimum. The new minimum will be $17 per hour in 2025 and $18 per hour in 2026.

Supporters say a higher minimum wage reflects the realities of life in California. They also argue that many minimum wage workers are forced to rely on government food and housing assistance programs, and that forcing employers to raise their wages will benefit state taxpayers and local economies.

Opponents say a higher minimum wage would mean fewer new jobs and possibly some layoffs. They note that the state delayed raising the minimum wage for government workers when budget shortfalls became apparent last year, and that private businesses should be allowed to play by the same rules.

Regulation 33 (Rent Control)

Proposition 33 to expand rent control in California appears to have suffered a resounding defeat. As of Thursday, more than 61% of votes cast were against the proposal.

While many California cities have had rent controls for decades, those rules have been relaxed by the Costa-Hawkins Act, which limits rent controls to homes and apartment buildings built before 1995 and allows landlords to raise rents when new tenants move in. Proposition 33 aims to allow cities to set rent rules that work for the majority of their residents.

California has a much higher share of renters (44%) than the national average (about 35%), and Proposition 33 supporters say most of those renters pay more than a third of their income to keep a roof over their heads.

Supporters of Proposition 33 say the rules would provide rent relief for millions of Californians and help slow the state’s growing housing crisis.

Opponents say the law would have the opposite effect.

Regulation 34 (Health Expenditures)

The latest vote count on Thursday showed only a slight lead in passage of Proposition 34, a law that, if passed, could face another challenge in court. The votes were 51.%.

Essentially, Proposition 34 is a proposed amendment to the health care law. This would require a very specific group of healthcare providers to set aside 98% of any rebate they receive when purchasing drugs specifically intended for patient care.

But the world of health care providers described in this indicator is so narrow that many believe it applies to one organization, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS health centers in California and 14 other states.

Opponents say the purpose of Proposition 34 is to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for promoting lower rents and other concepts opposed by the real estate industry. Supporters say the law’s purpose is to ensure accountability; To help patients, federal drug price rebates should be used.

It is against federal and state laws to make solicitations directed at any individual or company.

Regulation 35 (Health Tax)

Voters apparently want California to spend the roughly $35 billion expected to come from Medi-Cal taxes over the next four years on Medi-Cal, a public insurance program for low-income Californians, rather than on the general fund , according to Thursday’s results. The “yes” vote was 66.9%.

This spending path is the core promise of Proposition 35, which aims to change Sacramento’s long-standing practice of using Medi-Cal taxes to fill budget gaps in non-health care areas.

Supporters of Proposition 35 argue that the system needs financial support. Opponents say the measure is too restrictive on how money is spent in Sacramento.

Regulation 36 (Retail theft and drug offences)

Ten years after the passage of Proposition 47, which sought to reduce fines and incarceration rates for drug crimes, California voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 36. Voting results released Thursday showed a huge margin of victory: 70.2% against 29.8%.

• See also: Voter-approved California Proposition 36 gives law enforcement the ability to rehabilitate drug users and curb theft, officials say

The new measure would reclassify some misdemeanors as felonies and create a new category of crimes — “felonies requiring treatment” — that would give drug addicts convicted of certain crimes the option of going to rehab or spending up to three years in prison.

The vote reflects widespread frustration over a pandemic-era surge in retail theft, car break-ins and the apparent realization among some criminals that stealing merchandise under $1,000 will not result in jail time. The study found that shoplifting crimes involving property valued at $950 or less rose about 28% over the five-year period ending last year.

Supporters of Proposition 36 link the law to homelessness, saying the surge in people trying to find housing includes people who are also struggling with addiction.

Opponents say the law would likely lead to the refilling of jails and prisons that became less overcrowded after the passage of Proposition 47, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.