California Proposition Roundup: What Passed, What Failed, and What's Still Up in the Air

Updated 9 a.m. Monday

California voters are deciding the outcome of 10 state propositions, including measures that deal with criminal justice, rent control, the minimum wage and investments in schools and climate resilience.

With more than half of all votes counted statewide — representing more than 10.7 million voters — five measures had earned enough support to be declared winners by the Associated Press, while three have definitely failed.

What passed (in the order called)

Proposition 36: Toughening criminal penalties

One of the big winners is a measure toughening criminal penalties for some nonviolent crimes. Proposition 36, which the Associated Press called just before 9 p.m. Tuesday night, will reverse key parts of a decade-old voter initiative that reduced penalties for drug possession and low-level thefts and diverted thousands of people from prison. As of Wednesday afternoon, more than 70% of votes counted were in favor of the measure, with just over half of total votes counted.

Proposition 36 came largely in response to concerns over retail theft and the fentanyl crisis, despite Gov. Gavin Newsom’s efforts to convince Californians the problems could be handled without rolling back Proposition 47, the 2014 law.

Proposition 3: Same-sex marriage

A constitutional amendment to protect the right of same-sex couples to marry also succeeded, garnering 61% of votes counted as of Wednesday afternoon. Proposition 3 will remove language defining marriage as “between a man and a woman” that was placed in the state constitution after voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008.

The measure will also add language declaring marriage “a fundamental right.” In practice, same-sex marriages have been legal in California since 2013, when a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed them to resume. However, California Democratic lawmakers put this measure on the ballot to protect against possible federal changes to marriage protections.

Proposition 35: Medi-Cal funding

A third winning measure is Proposition 35, which will shore up funding for Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for lower-income Californians. The measure, which had 67% support as of early Wednesday afternoon, will make a tax on health insurance companies permanent and prevent lawmakers from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending.

Today, more than 14 million Californians — about a third of the state population — use Medi-Cal. However, with California’s reimbursement rate well below the national average, many providers won’t treat Medi-Cal patients. The measure is projected to generate more than $35 billion over the next four years. It’s backed by doctors, hospitals and clinics that want the money to go toward increased payments.

Proposition 4: Funding climate projects

Voters also approved a $10 billion bond measure to fund projects to help California prepare for the impacts of climate change. Proposition 4, which the Associated Press called late Wednesday morning, had the support of nearly 58% of voters, with just over half of all votes counted. The measure 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.

All four measures that succeeded were popular across the state, according to Mark Baldassare, survey director at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. Proposition 36, the criminal justice measure, he noted, was showing particularly broad-based support.

“It’s one of those rare circumstances where it’s passing in every county. There are not many times where you see that kind of consensus about changing criminal policy,” Baldassare said. “The right to marriage equality, Proposition 3, also had very strong support but with more divisions across the state.”

Proposition 2: School repairs

Proposition 2, another $10 billion bond measure that will empower the state to borrow funds to repair and upgrade aging schools, was also approved by voters. As of Wednesday evening,  the measure held a commanding lead, with nearly 57% in favor – among the more than half of votes counted – prompting the AP to call the race.

Unlike many other states, California doesn’t have a dedicated funding stream to maintain the state’s 10,000 public K–12 schools and 116 community colleges. The money must come via bond measures on the ballot. But in 2020, voters rejected the last one, a $15 billion statewide school construction bond.

What failed

Proposition 33: Rent control 

Meanwhile, a measure that would allow local governments to expand rent control failed to win support from a majority of voters, with more than 61% opposing it as of Wednesday afternoon.

Proposition 33 would have permitted local governments to expand rent control by repealing a state law called the Costa-Hawkins Act, which bars rent regulations on single-family homes and units built after 1995 — and exempts landlords from rent control when a unit becomes vacant, allowing them to set their own rates for the next tenants.

The measure would also have prevented the state from passing any new laws limiting local rent control. Voters rejected similar ballot measures in 2018 and 2020.

Proposition 5: Affordable housing and infrastructure

Voters rejected 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. Proposition 5 would have lowered the threshold for winning to 55%.

Slightly more than 56% of voters opposed the measure by Friday morning, when AP called the result.

Proposition 6: Involuntary servitude

A measure to prevent forced labor in California prisons was called late Sunday, with 53.8% of voters rejecting the measure. Proposition 6 would’ve removed a provision in the state constitution that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.

In practice, the measure would’ve prevented 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 follows states like Alabama and Colorado, which recently removed this relic of slavery from their constitutions.

What hasn’t been called yet

Proposition 32: Minimum wage

Voters were narrowly leaning against raising the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour, with 52% opposing the measure among votes counted as of Wednesday afternoon.

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.

Proposition 34: Prescription drug spending (sort of)

Voters were narrowly favoring a landlord-backed measure that, on the surface, appears to be about prescription drug spending but, in actuality, targets only one health care provider — an organization that also supports rent control. Proposition 34, which had the support of 51.5% of voters as of Wednesday afternoon, 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?”

This story includes reporting from KQED’s Adhiti Bandlamudi, Farida Jhabvala Romero, Sukey Lewis, Guy Marzorati, Lesley McClurg, Daisy Nguyen, Vanessa Rancaño and Julie Small, and our partner CalMatters.