By Katie Ngo
This past November, California voters were able to vote on propositions, with subjects ranging from housing to healthcare. These propositions have a wide range of effects, including controlling the state’s budget and potentially amending the constitution.
Out of the ten propositions that were voted on, six of them passed. Here is a list of the passed propositions and their effects.
This proposition will provide educational facilities $10 billion for repairs, giving $8.5 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges. The money will be provided through state-issued bonds, with the state repaying $500 million annually over the next 35 years. It will be distributed through matching grants, with the state providing more funding for certain districts with lower income, more English learning students and a greater number of foster youth.
Supporters say that this proposition is necessary for vital school repairs, especially in areas without the funds to maintain and upgrade schools and colleges. However, opponents believe that these repairs could be funded through the normal budget rather than adding more strain on taxpayers.
This proposition will amend California’s constitution, enshrining the right to marry regardless of race or sex. It will also remove language added in a 2008 proposition from the Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. While this is a constitutional amendment, in practice it does not change who can marry. US Supreme Court cases Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges already ruled on this issue in the past.
Supporters of the proposition state that this will only remove outdated language from the Constitution and protect the right to marriage regardless of race or sex. Opponents had argued that the amendment goes too far, taking away safeguards to protect marriages and children given that it removes all limitations on marriage. This includes child marriages, incest and polygamy.
This proposition will borrow $10 billion in bonds for environmental and climate projects such as safe drinking water, wildfire protection and protecting natural land. It prioritizes those most in need for these projects and most vulnerable to environmental threats. The annual repayment cost will be $400 million over the next 40 years.
Supporters say that given the environmental dangers that arise due to water pollution, wildfires and extreme heat, this investment is both necessary and urgent. However, opponents say that due to the nature of bonds as among the most costly ways of funding government spending, these projects should be paid for without taking on this extra level of debt.
This proposition will require certain healthcare providers to spend 98% of the revenue they receive from a federal discount for prescription drugs on direct patient care. This mostly impacts the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is the only organization that fits the proposition’s specific criteria. It also ensures that all state agencies negotiate for lower drug prices as a single entity.
Supporters say that this proposition will provide transparency on how healthcare providers spend the money they receive from federal discounts, which should be spent on patients in the greatest need. Opponents state that this is a more political issue, illegally targeting a single organization. It is likely to face opponents in the courts.
This proposition will increase funding for Medi-Cal and other healthcare programs between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion by ensuring that the current tax on managed healthcare plans is permanent. It will also prevent state legislatures from replacing existing revenue with tax money. It is expected to increase state costs between around $1 billion and $2 billion annually for the implementation.
Supporters say that in order to offset spending on Medi-Cal, necessary investments in health care services without raising taxes on individuals are crucial. Opponents say that it reduces the flexibility of legislatures to balance the state’s budget.
This proposition will reclassify certain misdemeanor crimes in theft and drugs as felonies, as well as increase the sentencing for other theft and drug crimes. It also allows for those who plead guilty to felony drug possession to go through complete drug treatment and have charges dismissed.
Supporters believe that this proposition is a way to combat homelessness, an effect of drug dependence, by increasing the penalty for drug possession and forcing people to go through drug treatments. Opponents say that a harsher punishment, or even the threat of one, will not combat crime or homelessness. Instead, it will increase court and prison costs without achieving the goals of the supporters.
