Editor’s Note: This article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.
California is ruled by Democrats, but it’s also one of the most small-D democratic states in the nation.
Direct democracy – or legislating through the ballot – has been baked into the Golden State’s political system for well over a century, allowing voters to legislate and amend the constitution at the ballot box, placing them on equal footing with state lawmakers.
It’s a right that isn’t guaranteed to all American voters: twenty-four states do not allow for citizen initiatives or referenda at the state level.
Two-thirds of California voters said it’s a good thing that voters can make laws and change policies through initiatives, according to a 2022 PPIC survey.
Californians “love the idea of the initiative process,” said Renée Van Vechten, political science professor at the University of Redlands. “They don’t love the process itself.”
That’s because money plays a huge role in the ballot measure process: It’s expensive to gather the million-plus signatures needed to place a question on the ballot and even more expensive to run a statewide ad campaign.
Already this year, Van Vechten has totaled more than $450 million in spending on the statewide initiatives.
“We have a system that allows organizations, businesses and individuals to buy a seat at the table,” she said. “If you have enough money, you can get almost anything to qualify.”
Since the initiative, recall and referendum processes were enacted in California in 1911, voters have attempted to place 2,147 measures on the ballot (that’s not including constitutional amendments or questions placed on the ballot by state lawmakers).
The vast majority of those – 1,580 – failed to qualify. In over a century, only 138 ballot propositions have been approved by voters in the end, according to data from the Secretary of State’s office.
Though they reject most ballot measures, California voters often have many complicated and high-stakes issues to decide each election. And lawmaking via ballot initiative is much more rigid than in a legislature, where elected officials and lobbyists can negotiate and cut deals.
“One of the fundamental flaws of our system is that it allows for a kind of up or down vote on complex issues without the benefit of compromise, expertise or a process that could accommodate changes that are reasonable,” Van Vechten said.
“The people get an up or down vote on hugely convoluted and complex initiatives at times.”
As Stan Lee once wrote, with great power comes great responsibility.
Read up on the propositions that will be on California voters’ ballots this November:
Proposition 2, education facilities bond
Prop. 2 asks voters to approve a $10 billion bond financing for aging educational facilities. If approved, $8.5 billion would go toward updating or building new K-12 buildings. The remaining $1.5 billion would be used for community colleges. It’s the second time in five years voters are being asked to allow the state to take on debt for school infrastructure – voters rejected a $15 billion school bond in March 2020.
Supporters of Prop. 2 include:
-
California Teachers Association
-
California School Nurses Organization
-
Community College League of California
Opponents include:
-
Assemblyman Bill Essayli, R-Corona
-
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Proposition 3, marriage equality
This ballot measure would repeal outdated language from California’s Constitution that says marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Voters enshrined this definition, effectively banning same-sex marriages, when they approved Proposition 8 in 2008. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually struck down the decision, when in ruled in favor of the right to marry for same-sex couples in 2015, but the Prop. 8 language remains on California’s books.
Californians will once again decide whether to change the Constitution’s language this November.
Supporters include:
-
Assemblymember Evan Low, D-Campbell
-
Equality California
-
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Opponents of Prop 3 include:
Proposition 4, climate bond
Similar to Prop. 2, lawmakers placed Prop. 4 on the ballot to request $10 billion in bond funds for a variety of climate projects. The bond comes after two years of significant budget deficits which saw California’s climate spending scaled back.
If approved, $3.8 billion would go toward safe drinking water and drought and flood resilience projects; $1.5 billion for wildfire resilience; $1.2 billion to protect against sea level rise; and other allocations for biodiversity, outdoor access, clean air and more.
Backers of the climate bond include:
Opponents include:
-
Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-Santee
-
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Proposition 5, local bond approval
Prop. 5 would lower the supermajority vote required by voters to approve local bonds to finance housing and infrastructure projects in their communities. Currently, a two-thirds vote is needed, but this constitutional amendment would lower the threshold to 55%.
If passed, it would be easier for local governments to issue bonds to develop affordable housing and other projects in their jurisdictions. Opponents say it would lead to more borrowing and higher property taxes to pay for new projects.
Those opponents include:
-
California Business Roundtable
-
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
-
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Supporters of Prop 5 include:
-
California Professional Firefighters
-
League of Women Voters of California
-
Habitat for Humanity California
Proposition 6, involuntary servitude
Prop. 6 would remove all language allowing slavery and involuntary servitude from California’s constitution. Currently, the constitution reads “Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.”
That language would be amended to read “Slavery and involuntary servitude is prohibited.” It would also ban the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from punishing inmates for refusing a work assignment. A companion bill created a voluntary work program in the prison system.
Supporters of Prop. 6 include:
-
The California Legislative Black Caucus
-
Dolores Huerta, a farmworker and labor leader
There is no formal opposition to Proposition 6.
Proposition 32, minimum wage
Prop. 32 would gradually bump up California’s minimum wage to $18 an hour. If it passes, all minimum wage workers would immediately get a pay bump. The $16 minimum wage would reach $18 per hour for all workers, besides contract and self-employed workers – by Jan. 1, 2026.
The measure does require larger businesses with more than 25 employees to reach $18 at a faster pace, by the start of 2025. However, if an economic downturn occurs, the Governor has the power to delay those increases up to two times.
Supporters of Prop. 32 include:
-
Joseph Sandberg, a businessman and Blue Apron investor
-
Los Angeles Councilman Kevin de León
Opponents include:
-
California Restaurant Association
-
California Chamber of Commerce
-
California Grocers Association
Proposition 33, rent control
A vote in favor of this measure would allow cities to expand rent control in California. If the proposition passes, it would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which bans rent control for housing built after 1995 and fo single-family homes.
Cities and counties would have more power to limit rent increases for incoming and existing tenants, making it harder for landlords to hike up prices. The measure would also insert new language into California law that prohibits the state from limiting how cities and counties expand or maintain rent control. This is the third time since 2018 that voters will decide on the issue: Similar ballot initiatives, in 2018 and 2020, failed by 19 and 20 points, respectively.
Supporters of Prop. 33 include:
-
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation
-
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
-
California Nurses Association
Opponents include:
Proposition 34, funding for patient care
Prop. 34 requires organizations that use a federal drug discount program to spend at least 98% of that money on direct patient care. Proponents who put the measure on the ballot say it is meant to go after the Aids Healthcare Foundation, which critics accuse the nonprofit of spending millions on political causes (such as Prop 33), rather than patient care and housing. The AHF has called Prop 34 “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
Supporters of Prop 34 include:
Opponents include:
Proposition 35, permanent Medi-Cal funding
Prop. 35 would make permanent a tax on health insurers – also known as the MCO tax – which is currently set to expire in 2026. Newsom and legislative leaders recently renewed the tax to help fill budget deficits. Implementing the MCO tax also allows the state to draw down additional federal funds to pay for Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for poor residents.
The measure requires funds from the tax to be used specifically for Medi-Cal and prohibits the state from using the money to replace existing funds. The MCO tax is expected to bring in between $6 and $9 billion by the end of 2026, but analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office said the long-term fiscal effects of the measure are uncertain, in part because the tax requires regular federal approval and isn’t guaranteed under future administrations.
Supporters of Prop. 35 include:
-
California Medical Association
-
California Dental Association
-
International Association of EMTs and Paramedics
Its opponents include:
-
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
-
League of Women Voters of California
-
The Children’s Partnership
Proposition 36, criminal penalties
Prop. 36 aims to revise Prop. 47, a 2014 ballot initiative that downsized some lower-level crimes to misdemeanors and put in place a $950 threshold for shoplifting felonies.
The proposed changes would raise penalties and sentences for some drug and theft offenses. For example, fentanyl would be added to the list of drugs that warrant a felony charge if the person is also carrying a gun, increasing the punishment from up to one year in jail to up to four years in prison. Another major revision would bump up punishments for convicted shoplifters with two or more prior theft-related convictions.
Prop. 36 is dividing Democratic leaders across the state; some mayors and moderate lawmakers broke with Newsom and legislative leaders to support the measure.
Prop. 36 supporters include:
-
Mayors London Breed of San Francisco, Matt Mahan of San Jose and Todd Gloria of San Diego
-
California District Attorneys Association
-
California Small Business Association
Its opponents include:
-
Gov. Gavin Newsom, Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate pro Tem Mike McGuire
-
Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
-
Anti-Recidivism Coalition
