California voters have 10 ballot measures to consider while filling out their mail-in ballot or attending polls for the Nov. 5 election, including bond proposals, a minimum wage increase, and a public safety proposal, among other items.

Increased Drug and Theft Penalties

Proposition 36 allows felony charges for repeat offenders of certain drug and theft crimes. The proposal would also increase penalties for smash-and-grab robberies.

Proponents said Prop. 36 would stop criminals from exploiting loopholes in existing laws established by the passage of Proposition 47—which changed some felony crimes to misdemeanors—in 2014.

“California is suffering from an explosion in crime and the trafficking of deadly hard drugs like fentanyl,” a group of law enforcement and community advocates said in a supporting statement filed with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the ballot guide. “Prop. 36 will fix the mess our politicians have ignored for far too long.”

The proposal also includes Alexandra’s Law—which establishes warnings for those convicted of distributing fentanyl that if they provide the drug and it results in death, they could face murder charges.

“Fentanyl has killed too many people, yet traffickers can avoid the consequences,” said Gina McDonald, co-founder of Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Deaths. “We need Prop. 36 because no parent should ever have to bury another child killed by fentanyl poisoning.”

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the measure would increase criminal justice costs in the state from tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Opponents—including Gov. Gavin Newsom—said the proposal goes too far and could result in sharp increases in prison incarceration rates.

“Retail theft and fentanyl are real problems. Californians deserve real solutions,” Cristine Soto DeBerry, executive director of the Prosecutors Alliance Action; Don Frazier, executive director of the Reentry Providers Association of California; and David Guizar, co-founder of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, said in an opposition statement. “Prop. 36 is a false promise, not a fix ... [and] will reignite the failed war on drugs, wasting billions on jails and prisons, and slashing crucial funding for crime prevention, treatment, victims, and rehabilitation.”

Critics also said the measure would cause confusion in the court system.

“This sends California backward, not forward,” the group said.

Recent polls from the Public Policy Institute of California and the University of California–Berkeley show broad support for the proposition across demographic groups.

School Bond

Proposition 2, a $10 billion school bond proposal, authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds to fund construction, repairs, and upgrades for public schools, community colleges, and technical education programs.

State analysts estimate annual costs of about $500 million for 35 years to repay the bond—with interest payments totaling approximately $8 billion.

Supporters say the money is needed to address leaky roofs, vintage electrical systems and sewer lines, and dangerous substances plaguing some schools—while others need clean drinking water, plumbing, and restroom upgrades, and protection for students from extreme heat.

“Many schools in California are old, deteriorating, unsafe and cannot support the basic needs of our children,” David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association; Sheri Coburn, executive director of the California School Nurses Organization; and Larry Galizio, chief executive officer of the Community College League of California, said in arguments published in the ballot guide.

They said Prop. 2 would make schools safer—with money for items such as fire alarms, smoke detectors, security and emergency communications systems, door locks, and others.

“Our schools are in desperate need of upgrades and repairs to ensure our students are safe and ready to learn,” the group said. “Prop 2 will help our students succeed.”

Some critics said the proposal is too costly and highlighted the state’s budget dilemma—with lawmakers navigating a $73 billion deficit in the current fiscal year and long-term deficits of unknown proportions expected for the next few years.

“Proposition 2 is yet another attempt to circumvent California’s financial problems by asking taxpayers to approve a $10 billion bond for education financing that should have been included in this year’s $288 billion budget package,” Assemblyman Bill Essayli said in an opposition statement in the voter guide.

“A budget is a reflection of priorities, and our State Legislature chose to prioritize over $5 billion for universal illegal immigrant healthcare rather than providing funds to support and repair our school infrastructure. Billions in new bond debt is not the answer.”

Marriage Rights

Proposition 3 amends the California Constitution by removing language stating that marriage is only valid and recognized when it is between a man and a woman.

Proponents said the change is needed to realign the language of the state’s founding document to reflect current legal standards, which recognize marriages of different kinds.

“Proposition 3 protects the right of every Californian, regardless of gender or race, to marry the person they love,” Equality California said in a supporting argument.

Opponents said the wording of the measure—which calls marriage a “fundamental right”—is too vague and could be interpreted to include child marriage, polygamy, or incest.

“We should update our laws carefully while keeping necessary safeguards,” Jonathan Keller, president of the California Family Council, Reverend Tanner DiBella, founder of the American Council of Evangelicals, said in the ballot guide. “Instead of rushing to redefine marriage in ways that exclude a child’s mother or father, we should insist that all adults conform to the needs of children.”

Wildfire and Water Bond

Proposition 4 authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds to protect communities and lands by mitigating wildfires, droughts, and floods.

The analyst’s office anticipates increased costs of $400 million annually for 40 years.

Supporters said the money would benefit first responders.

“Giving firefighters the tools to prevent wildfires is the best, most cost-effective way to prevent the human and financial costs of these disasters,” Tim Edwards, president of Cal Fire Firefighters, said in the ballot guide. “Prop. 4 makes the right investments to save lives and billions in response and recovery costs.”

Others said the state has a responsibility to protect beaches, forests, and other natural landscapes and said billions of dollars would be saved by reducing damage from natural disasters.

Critics said the debt created by the bonds is a problem and suggested the money could be better spent on other solutions.

“Bonds are the most expensive way for the government to pay for things,” Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, Assemblyman Jim Patterson, and Jon Coupal—president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association—said in the voters’ guide. “By committing funds to speculative projects, Proposition 4 overlooks long-term water storage and critical wildfire fuel management programs in favor of short-term, unproven projects.”

Voter Approval Requirement

Proposition 5 allows approval of certain local bonds for infrastructure and housing with 55 percent voters’ approval instead of the two-thirds currently required by state law.

Analysts said the lower threshold would make it easier to pass some bond measures—citing recent election results where 20 percent to 50 percent more bond measures would have passed with the lower requirement.

Any borrowing costs would ultimately be paid with higher property taxes, according to the analyst’s office.

Proponents said the proposition is needed to help address the state’s housing availability issue.

“We have a massive shortage of affordable housing for low- and middle-income Californians,” Brian K. Rice, president of California Professional Firefighters, Christopher Carson, president of the League of Women Voters of California, and Leah Miller, chairperson for Habitat for Humanity California, said in the ballot guide.

They also said the passage of more infrastructure bonds could help local voters invest in bridges, roads, and other projects.

“Prop 5 trusts local voters to prioritize what’s most important in their communities,” the group said.

Opponents said the constitutional protections regulating voter approval requirements have stood for nearly 150 years and need to be safeguarded.

“Prop 5 makes it easier for cities, counties, and special districts to increase property taxes to pay for our already massive debt levels in California,” Robert Gutierrez, president of the California Taxpayers Association; Julian Canete, president of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; and Kendra Moss, advisory member of the Women Veterans Alliance, said in the voter guide.

They also said that infrastructure was not clearly defined by the proposal, which could lead to broad interpretations.

Involuntary Work in Prison

Proposition 6 amends the state Constitution to restrict jails and prisons from forcing work on incarcerated individuals.

Under existing law, corrections facilities can require inmates to work—in positions like cleaning, cooking, and other jobs—or participate in educational opportunities.

About one-third of inmates work statewide, with many earning less than $1 per hour—and some receive credits to reduce their sentence—according to the analyst’s office.

Those who refuse to work can be penalized with various consequences, including losing access to phones.

“Forced labor in prisons is cruel and unfair, often leading to harsh punishments like violence, solitary confinement, and denial of services,” Assemblywoman Lori Wilson; Dolores Huerta, executive director of the Dolores Huerta foundation; and Stephen Downing, retired Deputy Chief of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, said in the ballot guide. “Proposition 6 expands voluntary prison work programs and ensures dignity, choice, and rehabilitation.”

No individuals or groups are officially listed in opposition.

Brian James, a former inmate who spent 29 years in California state prison after being convicted of second-degree murder, previously told The Epoch Times “I believe work should be enforced.”

James said the entire prison facility was run by inmates, who are responsible for tasks including yard maintenance, plumbing, electrical work, and cooking. They are also assigned tasks based on their education and experience, he said.

He said prison labor should be considered as “a point of dignity” rather than slavery, as it allows inmates to gain needed skills to “go back into society.”

Minimum Wage Increase

Proposition 32 would raise the state’s minimum wage—with employers with more than 25 employees required to pay $17 per hour immediately if approved, and at least $18 per hour starting Jan. 1. Smaller businesses would need to pay $17 per hour starting in January and $18 per hour the following January.

According to analysts, the economic effects of the proposal could be wide-ranging.

Labor markets would be pressured, as employees in other pay ranges would also get raises, and businesses could pass off higher labor costs onto consumers by raising the price of goods and services.

One supporter said the raise is needed to address cost of living issues in the state.

“It’s time that we make California a place that working families can afford,” Joe Sanberg, an anti-poverty advocate, said in the ballot guide.

Others said millions of workers in the Golden State need higher wages.

“We have to raise the minimum wage to help service workers, essential workers, single moms, and other working Californians to be able to afford life’s basic needs,” Ada F. Briceño, co-president of Unite Here Local 11, Rep. Nanette Barragán, and Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, said in the voters’ guide.

Some critics said small businesses could be negatively impacted by the labor cost increases—with some potentially shutting down if they can’t remain profitable.

“The cost of living in California is too high,” Jet Condie, president of the California Restaurant Association; Jennifer Barrera, president of the California Chamber of Commerce; and Ron Fong, president of the California Grocers Association, wrote in opposition. “Proposition 32 makes it even worse as it will increase costs on family-owned businesses who can least afford it and force small employers to increase prices for consumers to absorb the higher minimum wage.”

Rent Control

Proposition 33 repeals a law passed in 1995 that prohibits local governments from limiting rates for new tenants or rent increases for certain tenants. It also prevents the state from further limiting local rent control.

If more rent control laws are implemented, governments could see costs increase—up to tens of millions of dollars annually—to implement and enforce the laws, with costs passed onto landlords through fees, according to analysts.

Stricter rent regulations could cause rental property values to decline, which in turn will lower the amount of property taxes paid by tens of millions of dollars a year, analysts said.

Supporters said the proposition would help reduce housing costs for renters.

“Something has to give,” Michael Hedges, president of the California Small Business Association; Julian Canete, president of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; and Reverend Dwight Williams, chair of the California Senior Alliance, said in the ballot guide. “The affordable housing crisis is destroying the California Dream.”

They said the issue is “complex” and that no easy solutions exist.

Critics said the proposition is “misleading” and could change more than 100 housing laws meant to facilitate the construction of affordable housing.

“Prop 33 will make it harder to become a homeowner or find a place to rent, driving up costs for renters and home buyers,” said Ken Rosen, economics professor emeritus at the University of California-Berkeley; Jenna Abbott, executive director of the California Council for Affordable Housing; and Kendra Moss, advisory member of the Women Veterans Alliance.

Prescription Drug Revenue Spending

Proposition 34 requires certain providers to spend 98 percent of revenues on patient care, including those that spent more than $100 million of revenue derived from the federal prescription drug discount program in a ten-year period on anything other than patient care and operated multifamily housing units that received more than 500 health and safety violations.

Revenues are generated by charging healthcare payers—including the state—more than the price paid for prescription drugs obtained through the discount program.

The analyst’s office anticipates annual costs to the state of millions of dollars to enforce rules, which could be recouped with fees charged to any impacted organizations.

While not named in the proposal, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation would be affected by the measure—which would penalize noncompliance with the loss of nonprofit status and revocation of healthcare licenses.

Supporters—including Assemblyman Evan Low, among others—said the measure is needed to close “corporate loopholes that allow wealthy pharmacy corporations to divert money meant to help patients.”

Critics said the proposal is a “grave danger to democracy.”

“It seeks to weaponize the initiative process by allowing powerful interests to target a single organization to punish and shut them up,” Jerilyn Stapleton, board member of the National Organization for Women; Larry Gross, executive director for the Coalition for Economic Survival; and Dr. Condessa M. Curley, board member of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said in a statement filed in opposition.

Managed Care Tax Extension

Proposition 35 makes permanent an existing tax on managed health care insurance plans.

The measure would increase funding for Medi-Cal and other programs by between $2 billion and $5 billion annually—with half of the money coming from the federal government, as the proposal requires the state to use the tax revenue for additional funding, according to analysts.

California would also see costs increase by $1 billion to $2 billion in 2025 and 2026, analysts found, because the proposition reduces the amount of tax revenue the state can use to pay existing Medi-Cal costs.

Supporters say the measure would protect and expand access to care without raising taxes on individuals.

No opposition was listed in the ballot guide.

Mail-in ballots are on the way to California voters, with return postmarks due by Nov. 5, and polls will be open between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. on election day. For more information, visit sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-info/ways-vote