In the November election, California voters will decide on 11 propositions. Here’s everything you need to know about them.


Proposition 1: Housing Programs and Veterans’ Loans Bond

Voting “Yes”

Voting “yes” on Prop. 1 would support the authorization of $4 billion in bonds to go towards housing-related programs, loans, grants and projects for veterans. It would build new apartments near public transit, helping with down payments for certain home-buyers, providing home loans for veterans and helping create more housing for farm workers. This would provide housing to 55,000 people.

Voting “No”

Voting “no” on Prop. 1 would oppose the authorization of $4 billion in bonds for housing projects and programs from taxpayers. Opponents believe the measure costs too much and would not do enough for the California housing crisis.

People affected

Low-income to moderate income people and families, veterans and farmers would be affected because the measure would provide more affordable housing throughout the state. All California taxpayers would be affected from an increase in tax interest.

Proposition 2: Use Millionaire’s Tax Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Housing Bonds Measure

Voting “Yes”

Voting “yes” on Prop. 2 would support the use of the 1 percent of millionaires’ tax money towards creating housing for the mentally ill, potentially alleviating homelessness and helping those with mental illnesses. Services included medical care, counseling and job training. Prop. 2 is an expansion of Prop. 63, which passed in California in 2004. The proposition may take away funding for treatment of the mentally ill, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness Contra Costa.

Voting “No”

Voting “no” on Proposition 2 would oppose the use of the 1 percent of millionaires’ tax money towards building housing for mentally ill homeless people. 

People affected

Prop. 2 would affect the homeless, those with mental illnesses, and also millionaires who are being taxed.

Julia Jackson-Clark | Mustang News

Proposition 3: Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative

Voting “Yes”

A “yes” on Prop. 3 means the state would be authorized to sell $8.9 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund various projects for water supply and quality, watershed, fish, wildlife, water conveyance and groundwater sustainability and storage.

Voting “No”

A “no” on Prop. 3 would be to not authorize the selling of the bonds to support the environmental projects. Opponents argue that the funds the measure promises to provide will not ensure any new, usable water. The debt the state would be in due to the bonds would cost California taxpayers $430 million per year over the course of 40 years to 2cover both the principle cost and the interest.

People affected

Cal Poly students will not necessarily see the direct impact of Prop. 3 in San Luis Obispo; however, this may impact some students’ hometowns in other parts of California. Taxpayers in California would be affected. 

Proposition 4: Children’s Hospital Bonds Initiative

Voting “Yes

Voting “yes” on Prop. 4 means the state could sell $1.5 billion in bonds for the purpose of improving children’s hospitals. The selling of the bonds would fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation and equipping of qualifying children’s hospitals. The measure would aim to increase capacity, provide the latest technology and advance pediatric research to help cure more children at children’s hospitals that care for more than 2 million sick children per year no matter what families can pay.

Voting “No”

Voting “no” on Prop. 4 would mean that the state could not sell $1.5 billion in bonds for those purposes. Those opposed believe the principal and interest cost combined are too expensive. To repay the bonds that would be authorized with this measure, it will cost $80 million each year for the next 35 years.

People affected

The measure would affect California taxpayers as well as children and families of children who spend extended time in children’s hospitals.

Proposition 5: Property Tax Transfer Initiative

Voting “Yes”

A vote “yes” on this measure would allow all homeowners who are 55 and older, or those who meet other qualifications, to be eligible for property tax savings when they move homes. The proposition would change the requirements for certain property owners to transfer their property tax base to replacement property. This would do away with the “moving penalty” that current seniors and severely disabled residents face.

Voting “No”

A vote “no” would mean that only certain homeowners who are older than 55, or others who meet other qualifications, to be eligible for property tax savings when they move homes. Opponents argue that California schools, fire and police departments, health care and other services as a whole would lose more than $100 million in revenues from annual property taxes early on, growing to about $1 billion per year. Local governments as a whole would also lose the same amount of funding.

People affected

The proposition would affect the elderly, those who are severely disabled, and also empty-nesters who are left with oversized homes who do not want to move due to property tax rates. California taxpayers would also be affected.

Proposition 6: Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative

Voting “Yes”

A vote “yes” on this measure would mean the fuel and vehicle tax — 12 cents, making the overall tax on gas 95.5 cents per gallon as well as a $175 car tax — which was recently passed by the Legislature, would be eliminated. It would also require the Legislator to be required to get a majority of voters to approve new or increased state fuel and vehicle taxes in the future. This would lower taxes and fees on gases and vehicles. The funds from the tax are designated for road repairs and public transportation.

Voting “No”

A vote “no” would allow the recent fuel and vehicle taxes measure to remain in place. This would then continue the funding for highway and road maintenance and repairs as well as transit programs. Opponents believe the proposition jeopardizes the safety of bridges and roads. There would be an estimated loss of $5 billion annually in local transportation, congestion relief and transportation improvement.

People affected

This proposition affects all those who have a car or pay for fuel in any way. California taxpayers would be affected as well as anyone who uses roads, bridges and public transit.

Proposition 7: Permanent Daylight Saving Time Measure

Voting “Yes”

Voting “yes” allows for California legislature to vote on whether California will no longer have time changes for daylight saving time twice a year. If approved by a two-thirds majority, the proposition would still need to be signed by the governor, followed by approval from Congress and the president. If approved, the clock would stay the same year-round. This is thought to better conserve energy by maximizing sunlight. Supporters argue there will be fewer heart attacks occurring, as well as energy reductions that could save $434 million per year statewide.

Voting “No”

Voting “no” means California will continue to have a time change twice a year, in March and in October. Opponents argue the current time system allows standard work and school days to start in sunlight, not pre-dawn. They say the current system is safer for school-age children and reduces the number of accidents connected to morning commutes. Farmers are also generally in favor of daylight savings as they have to work in the early hours and need sunlight.

People affected

Students, farmers, children and the elderly will generally be affected by the amount of sunlight there is in the morning and the level of darkness at night.

Julia Jackson-Clark | Mustang News

Proposition 8: Limits on Dialysis Clinics’ Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative

Voting “Yes”

Voting “yes” means that kidney dialysis clinics would have their revenues limited. If they exceed this limit, they will also be required to pay rebates back for these dialysis treatments, mostly to health insurance companies. Proponents argue that the substantial profits dialysis corporations make — $3.9 billion per year — are unjust. Even with these profits, there are still issues with the safety and sanitary needs of patients. Implementing a limit on these companies would encourage a focus on quality patient care.

Voting “No”

Voting “no” means that kidney dialysis clinics would not have their revenues limited and would not have to pay back rebates. Opponents argue this measure would cause the closure of many dialysis clinics, which would lead to a lack of access to these treatments.

People affected

This proposition will affect all Californians that could potentially need dialysis, nurses, doctors and employees of all major dialysis clinics.

Proposition 10: Local Rent Control Initiative

Voting “Yes”

Voting “yes” supports the repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and supports the expansion of local governments’ authority to regulate rent prices. The act currently prevents counties and cities from adopting rental ordinances that regulate rent prices. In accordance with California law, newly enacted rent-control policies will not impede a property owner’s ability to receive a fair financial return for the uses of their rental property. Proponents argue Costa-Hawkins has undermined local governments’ ability to protect its residents from exponentially increasing rent prices.

Voting “No”

Voting “no”will uphold the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, thus prohibiting local governments from enacting rent control. Opponents argue it will discourage property developers from building new housing, thus worsening the housing crisis by decreasing supply.

People affected

Students who opt to live off campus will be affected by the proposition, as prices for rental properties will be regulated locally. Landlords, property owners and tenants will all be affected.

Proposition 11: Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative

The court found that employer-required on-call (reachable by a communication device) rest breaks were a violation of labor laws. Current labor laws require that rest breaks are off-duty and uninterruptible.

Voting “Yes”

Voting “yes” would amend existing labor laws and allow ambulance providers to require employees to remain on-call during rest breaks, paid at their regular rate. This measure would also mandate that said employers provide additional training for EMTs, paramedics and some paid mental health services. Proponents of the initiative believe it will extend the longstanding industry precedent that emergency workers remain reachable on rest breaks.

Voting “No”

Voting “no” would uphold existing state labor laws, opposing employer-mandated on-call rest breaks for EMTs and paramedics. Opponents believe it will lead to an abuse of power by powerful corporations. Individuals are concerned these corporations would avoid paying their employees proper wages, harming emergency medical service workers as a result.

People affected

Ambulance employees, EMTs, paramedics and mental health professionals would be affected. Those in need of any of these services may also be affected.

Proposition 12: Farm Animal Confinement Initiative

Voting “Yes”

Voting “yes” forces meat, pork and egg producing farmers to use cages of a minimum size in order to sell their product. Business owners would not be allowed to sell these products if the cages are too small. The cages would have to be:

  • 43-square-feet of floor space per calf raised for veal by 2020
  • 24-square-feet of floor space per breeding pig by 2022
  • 1-square-foot of floor space per egg-laying hen by 2020
  • the specification of floor space is to be determined in the United Egg Producure’s Animal Husbandry Guidelines by 2022

Currently, the guidelines recommend 1-square-foot to 1.5-square-feet. The requirements would not apply to medical research, but would apply to scientific or agricultural research. Proponents argue this could result in a decrease in state income tax from farms.

Voting “No”

A “no” would maintain current law, which forces farmers to use cages big enough to allow the animal to “lay down, stand up, fully extend limbs, or turn around.” Current law does not set minimum cage sizes in terms of square feet. It allows small cages in scientific or agricultural research. Opponents argue that this would cost $10 million annually to enforce, would likely raise veal, pork, and egg prices due to the cost of animal housing remodeling and by removing production from farmers who did not comply with the proposition in time.

People affected

Farm owners and workers would be directly affected, as well as those who purchase veal, pork of any kind and eggs from farms.

Julia Jackson-Clark | Mustang News

Edit: A previous version of this article stated that Proposition 7 would end daylight saving time in California. This has now been corrected to say that the proposition would then need to be approved by legislature, Congress, the governor and the president.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *