Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:01:41] And Olivia, probably another, perhaps not super surprising one to pass in California was Prop 3, which enshrined the right to same sex marriage. And that proposition was pretty popular, it seemed like.
Olivia Allen Price [00:01:54] Yeah, I mean, this was one there wasn’t a lot of opposition that came out against it. There wasn’t a lot of spending against it. You know, generally polls in the state were showing it was going to pass and it did pretty handily. 62.6% of people ended up voting in favor of it. I think same sex marriage advocates would have actually liked to see that even higher. They really kind of saw this as a symbolic measure to just show how far California has come on same sex marriage, because when it’s gone before voters in the past, like we had Proposition 8 some years ago, it’s gone the other way. So this was kind of a the first chance that a statewide electorate was able to kind of come out in favor of same sex marriage. And so I think advocates were hoping for even more. But regardless of that, it still passed handily. So we will now, in the Constitution, basically the right to marriage is afforded to everyone, no matter your sexual orientation.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:02:52] Well, let’s get into some of the meatier, complicated ones, starting with the measures around criminal justice. Olivia. Prop 36 probably being one of the more controversial ones that rolls back past reforms that California voters have passed and actually makes it easier to charge people with felony crimes. And this one was pretty popular among voters as well. Can you remind us about Prop 36?
Olivia Allen Price [00:03:23] Sure. So Prop 36 did a number of things. What most people focus on is increased sentences for certain drug and theft crimes. If you steal below, I believe it’s $950 worth of merchandise from a store. If you’re caught with like a small amount of drugs, those were getting charged as misdemeanors. But what a lot of voters, you know, found the problem to be is people could repeatedly offend and continue to get misdemeanors, which don’t often come with many, if any, jail time. So what Prop 36 does is it allows, you know, judges and prosecutors to couple repeat offenses together and charge a felony, which comes with more jail time. You know, overall, it’s just like a harsher penalty. I think one of the big selling points of this prop to voters was that it establishes a new type of felony called a treatment mandated felony, which is specifically for people who are repeat drug offenders. So they could basically be charged with this certain type of felony where they have an alternative, which is to go through drug treatment.
One problem I think that a lot of voters saw with with the changes that we made a decade ago to how we were sentencing these crimes, is there really wasn’t an incentive for people who were addicted to drugs to seek treatment, but now they’re kind of going to be faced with the option, like, okay, you have a felony, which is a pretty serious crime to have on your record really comes with a lot of consequences. Or you can go through drug treatment and be released. So I think people are thinking this will compel more people to go through drug treatment, even though this was like one of the problems that I feel like we talked the most about leading up to the election. It was certainly one that there was a decent amount of spending on. It actually passed by 68%, which is more than any other proposition that we are going to be talking about today. That’s more than same sex marriage, more than any of these bonds. So, you know, Californians really came out for this prop.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:05:26] I mean, this ultimately, Olivia is a tough on crime measure. Right? Was this ultimately surprising?
Olivia Allen Price [00:05:34] I think some people would actually push back that it’s a tough on crime measure because it doesn’t go as far as a lot of what was happening in the 90s. You know, Marisa Lagos, KQED’s, you know, esteemed politics reporter, has has been clear to say like she doesn’t think this is kind of a return to tough on crime. It really was a more nuanced measure. She thought it was a more moderate measure than a lot of people expected, which may have been why? Like I think progressive voters or moderate voters got behind it. There is, I think, a frustration for some of the problems that people are seeing on the street. They’re tired of going to Walgreens and seeing things locked up. This appeared to be a measure that might help. So I think, you know, voters are willing to give it a try. And I think how well it plays out will probably be, you know, a bit of a bellwether for where Californians go next on criminal justice.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:06:25] And then, Alan, kind of sticking on the criminal justice front. Prop six, which would have banned involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime that failed. And lots of people I feel like I know in my circles were actually really surprised that this one didn’t pass in California. Can you talk a little bit more about Prop 6?
Alan Montecillo [00:06:48] Yeah, it’s interesting. I think that if you are a progressive who is dismayed about the election results, both at the national level and the local at the state and state level, the failure of Proposition 6, which, as you said, would have banned essentially forced prison labor by removing language about that in the California state constitution, the fact that that also failed kind of feels a little bit like insult to injury for for some people. So far, we know that Proposition 6 failed by about a margin of 53 to 47, 53% voting no, 47% voting yes. So it’s not a landslide, but it’s certainly a disappointing result for the advocates and the formerly incarcerated people who are pushing for Prop 6. You know, in the aftermath of the election, you know, our colleague Elize Manoukian wrote a piece about this. I think it’s fair to say that advocates who wanted Prop 6 to pass see 36 and 6 as interrelated.
You know that this was an election in which many Californians felt frustrated with public safety, felt like there wasn’t enough accountability. Obviously in Alameda County, we had the recall of DA., Pamela Price, the recall of Mayor Sheng Thao, and even in Los Angeles, the defeat of DA. George Gascon. So many voters, I think, motivated to vote based on public safety. I think those voters came out motivated against Prop 6, but they may have seen Prop 6 on the ballot and voted no and decided that making our criminal justice system and in particular our prisons less punitive is not really a priority right now.
I don’t think this will be the last time these advocates try and push. 15 states have already removed language related to slavery, related to forced prison labor from their state constitutions. In fact, in this same election, Nevada just next door passed a similar measure by about 60%. So, you know, this has been a long time going for some of these advocates. They’ve tried to get it on the ballot in years past. They failed this year. They got it on the ballot and it did fail. So I don’t think this is necessarily the last we’ll hear from them. But certainly I think the yes campaign got caught up in a election and in a statewide context that wasn’t friendly to them.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:09:01] And I think something that’s also reflected in how folks voted on housing and affordability measures in California. If we could turn to those ones, starting with Prop 33, Olivia, this is the rent control proposition. And this one failed by quite a bit, too, in California, right?
Olivia Allen Price [00:09:23] Yeah. So, you know, rent control is just 0 for 3 at this point. And in California, it’s been on the ballot a number of times in the past decade. This is the third time it’s gone up and voters have rejected it. What it would have done is basically it would have opened the door for local municipalities to enact or change their rent control laws. Currently, there is a state law on the books that essentially sort of freezes things in place as they were in 1995 and wrestles away some amount of control from local governments to do anything about rent control. So this is the third time, like I said, in the past decade, that this has gone before California voters and they have rejected it.
I think there’s a couple of reasons for that. I mean, one is just the opposition has deep pockets. They can get their message out there. This is realtor groups. This is landlords. I mean, a lot of homeowners really come out against rent control because even if they aren’t landlords themselves, I think there’s always the idea that perhaps they might need to be some day if they’re if their situation changes and they need to rent the home that they own. Also, you know, a lot of Yes In My Backyard or YIMBY groups are against rent control as well, or housing advocates because there is concern that rent control actually makes it more difficult for new construction to happen because developers may not have as many financial incentives to build if their properties would immediately fall under rent control. It limits how much profit they can make on new developments. So you do have a lot of people who are concerned about the price of housing actually against rent control.
Alan Montecillo [00:11:01] I will also say that going to your point of deep pockets, I don’t know what your ad consumption was like in the run up to election season. But if I were to tally up the number of ads per ballot measure Prop 33 is number one by a mile. I saw so many No on 33 ads. And the argument that I saw most often was this idea that 33 would make it harder to address the housing crisis. So I think all the points you brought up, Olivia, about homeowners being, you know, concerned that this could affect their bottom line later on, certainly developers worried about that. You know, that’s not the argument being put forward in ads all over the state. There’s a housing problem. The No on 33 side knows that that’s a concern. And so they were able to tailor the argument against 33 right into that concern about the housing crisis and the fact that we need more housing.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:11:49] That said, as you mentioned, Olivia, this wasn’t the first time rent control has has come before voters. I mean, do you think this will come up again?
Olivia Allen Price [00:11:59] You know, that actually depends a lot on what happens with Prop 34. So Prop 34 on its surface looked and was to some degree about patient care. It would have created new rules about how some health care providers spend revenue that they make selling pharmaceuticals. And it would have required these health care providers spend 98% of their revenue on direct patient services. Now, the Aids Health Care Foundation is the group that has been bankrolling all of these rent control measures that have been on the ballot in the past decade. And this measure, Prop 34, pretty specifically takes target at that political spending by requiring them to spend 98% of sort of this pot of money on patient services. It’s actually taking away from the amount that they would be able to spend on political advocacy work.
Right now, Prop 34 has passed. I expect it will go before a judge because there are some concerns that Prop 34 really single handedly was targeting one entity, which is unconstitutional in California. So it’s it’s possible that Prop 34 could get wiped out by the courts. We will have to see. But I do think if it is upheld and the Aids Healthcare Foundation basically kind of gets this whole arm of their company cut off, There’s not like a deep pocketed entity that is, you know, lined up ready to fight for rent control. So it might be a while before we see anything about it again.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:13:56] Olivia, just sticking on the topic of affordability in California, there was also Proposition 5, which was an affordable housing and public infrastructure bond measure. This also failed. How much did this one fail by?
Olivia Allen Price [00:14:25] 55% of voters came out against this one, up against 44.9% who came out in favor. So it lost by a pretty strong margin, in my opinion. What it would have done is it would have lowered the vote threshold needed for local governments to pass bond measures related to affordable housing. Right now, you need two thirds majority, which is actually a lot, if you think about it, especially in a time as divided as we are now. But Prop 5 would have lowered that threshold to 55%, a much more attainable number four for them to achieve.
This was a tough year for housing affordability advocates. 2024 in general was just kind of one that they kind of don’t want to go back and look at because they really only had Prop five to kind of hang their hat on for this year. A number of things work their way through the state legislature and kind of died along the way. That would have helped with housing affordability in the state and helped fund more housing affordability projects. But Prop 5 was the only one that made it to the ballot. So we’re kind of, you know, by cutting off some local funding, by not expecting federal funding to grow, it’s really cutting out to like pretty important sources for those types of projects. So I think it’s going to be a tough couple of years for affordable housing projects going forward.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:15:47] Yeah, I mean, Alan, bad news it sounds like, for for affordable housing, bad news for rent control this election. But what about money in people’s pockets? I mean, there was also Prop 32, which would have raised the minimum wage floor to $18 in California, and that that also failed, but just barely. What do you make of that?
Alan Montecillo [00:16:11] Failed by a pretty small margin, I believe at this point we’re at 50.8% voting no. I think part of the reason why it didn’t gain a lot of momentum and frankly, wasn’t a huge you know, you didn’t see 32 making a bunch of headlines in this campaign is that many jurisdictions and industries already have raised their minimum wage to $18 an hour or higher. Fast food workers, for example, make $20 an hour. And the statewide minimum wage, which is currently $16 an hour, is already set to go up to $17 an hour in 2026. And 32 would have had an impact, I should say. The Yes campaign estimated this would still effect effect about 2 million workers across the state.
One thing that was interesting about 32 is even though California has a very robust labor movement that has fought for many wage increases, including $20 an hour for fast food workers, including the $16 minimum wage that we have now. The impetus for this ballot measure actually came mostly from one guy and an investor and anti-poverty activist named Joe Sandberg. He actually spent more than $12 million of his own money on this campaign. And so even though there were, you know, labor groups, there were, you know, people, advocates who are for it, you know, it’s not like the full power of the labor movement was put behind Proposition 32. It kind of came from the outside. I think that’s one reason why 32 wasn’t didn’t really make huge waves in this particular election. It’s also possible that enough voters were persuaded by the argument on the no side that raising the minimum wage could lead to price increases. Certainly this is an election where, you know, cost of living was a prominent factor. So it’s possible that that also kind of put the no side over the edge there.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:17:55] And last but not least, in our final prop here is Prop 35, which provides permanent funding for medical. This one passed by a pretty big margin. Remind us again what this one is about and what is it going to mean for people who rely on Medi-Cal?
Alan Montecillo [00:18:13] Yeah, it passed by a huge margin. As of now, about 68% of California voters voted yes on 35. So a landslide victory. This was also a pretty complicated prop, I would say. Prop 35 relates to this pretty obscure tax on health insurance plans called the managed care organization tax. But what’s important is that 35 now says that money has to be used for Medi-Cal specifically. And it also places specifications on how that money can be used. The thinking behind this from its supporters was that this would stabilize funding for, you know, the state’s program health care program for low income people, and also that it would make sure that money goes to essential health services, that most people need access to things like primary care, things like emergency care.
So proponents of 35 hope that it will do just that. Access to care will be improved and that people who maybe have medical but who historically have had a hard time finding a primary care physician or something like that, will have an easier time doing that because those providers will we’ll have more stable payments, will be able to, you know, rely on being reimbursed by medical at a decent rate. There were some health advocates who were concerned about Prop 35, worried that it would restrict or even reduce funding for other types of health care, other types of care that people need, community health workers, Medi-Cal patients under five years old. So we’ll just have to wait and see in terms of what 35 is going to mean for health care.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:19:49] I mean, this is the second year, Olivia, that we at the Bay have collaborated with Bay Curious explaining the propositions on the statewide ballot. I mean, what are your takeaways from the results here?
Olivia Allen Price [00:20:03] I think it is interesting just to see how a more conservative electorate really showed up this time. Even in California, which it’s easy to think of as kind of this, you know, liberal bastion. You know, one of the states that’s going to maybe go, you know, toe to toe with the Trump administration, but to still see us kind of come out on the more conservative side of a lot of these issues I think is interesting and notable and, you know, worthy of attention. I’ll be really curious to see if we see any of these props boomerang like we have in the past, where we see, you know, advocates go back, iterate on them and try to get them on the ballot again for consideration in the next four, eight, 12 years. We will see.
Ericka Cruz Guevarra [00:20:48] Yeah, we’ll see how many more props are on the ballot next time for us. What about you, Alan? What are your biggest takeaways from the results here?
Alan Montecillo [00:20:57] Well, just to echo what Olivia said in terms of, you know, not knowing which way things will go. Elections are unpredictable. We all have our, you know, takes about what happened, why it happened. But things can change really quickly. I mean, six years ago, California voters voted to ban same sex marriage, and 16 years later, they voted by a pretty healthy margin to to protect it. So we’ll see what happens. I think one thing that just stands out to me is just the overload of information. I mean, as a San Francisco voter, if you count the state and local ballot measures, I had 25 ballot measures. You know, and I appreciate, you know, voters really trying to do their homework here.
