Climate projects
Another $10 billion bond measure, Proposition 4, would fund projects to help California prepare for the impacts of climate change. The measure, which also appears headed to victory, would improve water infrastructure such as reservoirs and groundwater storage; increase coastal resiliency and flood prevention; and address extreme heat and wildfire prevention. At least 40% of the funds must go to projects that benefit disadvantaged communities. If California does not take steps like this, the price tag for coping with climate impacts could cost $113 billion annually by 2050, according to a state analysis.
Affordable housing and infrastructure
Voters appeared likely to reject Proposition 5, a measure intended to make it easier for local governments to pass bonds and raise taxes for affordable housing and infrastructure. Currently, those local measures require approval from two-thirds of voters, and many measures fail to reach that supermajority. If Proposition 5 passes, the threshold for winning would be lowered to 55%.
Involuntary servitude
A measure to prevent forced labor in California prisons appeared to be headed for defeat. Proposition 6 would remove a provision in the state constitution that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. In practice it would prevent prison officials from disciplining an incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment. It comes out of a recommendation by a task force studying reparations for Black Californians, and would follow states like Alabama and Colorado, which also recently removed this relic of slavery from their constitutions.
Minimum wage
Voters were narrowly leaning against raising the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour. Under Proposition 32, California’s minimum wage would increase, by 2026, from the current minimum of $16 an hour. Businesses with 26 or more employees would have to immediately increase pay to $17 an hour, and to $18 by 2025. Smaller businesses would have until 2026 to make the jump. A recent UC Berkeley study found that California’s law increasing the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $20 an hour has not reduced employment in the fast-food sector, but in some instances resulted in slight price increases.
Prescription drug spending (sort of)
Voters appeared to narrowly favor a landlord-backed measure that on the surface appears to be about prescription drug spending but in actuality targets only one health care provider — and organization that also supports rent control. Proposition 34 would ostensibly restrict how health care providers can spend revenue from a federal program that allows them to purchase prescription drugs at a discount, then charge insurers market rate and use the difference to expand health services to disadvantaged groups.
The measure would require 98% of revenue from the program to go directly to patient care — but it’s tailored to only affect one provider, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which supports expanding rent control and opposes laws to require denser housing development.
Baldassare, of the Public Policy Institute of California, said the support for the two bond measures and the Medi-Cal tax indicated that voters wanted to make sure there would be sufficient funding for services such as health care and schools. But he said concerns about inflation and the cost of living took their toll on Propositions 32 and 33.
“While a minimum wage increase and local rent control would generally be popular measures [benefiting] lower-income Californians, concern about what would be the hidden cost … and the unintended consequences hit a chord with people,” he said.
Baldassare added that voters likely didn’t have enough information about several measures, including the one that would have lowered the voting threshold for raising local taxes and the one to eliminate involuntary servitude in prisons.
“I think Propositions 5 and 6 are examples of measures put on the ballot by the Legislature and then there was very little discussion afterward of what they were about,” he said. “Who’s for and who’s against? Why should we support this?”