Editorial: Yes on 3, and other recommendations

  • by BAR Editorial Board
  • Wednesday September 4, 2024
Share this Post:
Governor Gavin Newsom supports Proposition 3, the Freedom to Marry measure. Photo: Rick Gerharter
Governor Gavin Newsom supports Proposition 3, the Freedom to Marry measure. Photo: Rick Gerharter

For LGBTQ voters, the most important measure on the California ballot is Proposition 3, which removes language banning same-sex marriage from the state constitution. There are nine other statewide initiatives on the November 5 ballot. Below are our recommendations.

Proposition 3: Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. YES. Simply put, removing the old language from Proposition 8, that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," is overdue. Since Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court let those rulings stand in 2013, most people have gone about their lives without really thinking about it. But in 2022, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that maybe it's time for the court to reconsider other precedents, such as 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Alarmed, LGBTQ leaders moved to excise the Prop 8 language that remained in the state's governing document. Last year, a bipartisan vote by the Legislature put Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 on the November 2024 ballot — that is Prop 3. If approved, it will amend the constitution to recognize the fundamental right to marriage regardless of race or sex, in addition to removing the "zombie" Prop 8 language. As gay Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Cupertino), a co-author of ACA 5, wrote in the ballot argument in favor of Prop 3, "Recent threats against fundamental rights have made it clear California must be proactive in protecting the freedom to marry regardless of gender or race."

We know that attitudes toward same-sex marriage in the Golden State have only improved in the 16 years since Prop 8 was narrowly approved by voters. Still, we can't take anything for granted. California voters must approve Prop 3 to protect all of our rights. Vote YES on Prop 3.

Proposition 2 is a bond measure to fund safety and other projects at community colleges, such as City College of San Francisco, and K-12 schools. Photo: Rick Gerharter  

Proposition 2: Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute. YES. This measure authorizes $10 billion in state general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of K-12 public schools (including charter schools) and community colleges. It also provides funding to improve school health and safety conditions at existing facilities and for classroom upgrades such as science, engineering, transitional kindergarten, and vocational classrooms. It appropriates money from the state's general fund to repay the bonds.

There are approximately 10,000 public schools statewide (including 1,300 charter schools) and 151 community colleges, according to the voter guide. Needless to say, many of the facilities are outdated and need repairs to meet basic health and safety standards, prepare students for college and 21st century careers, and retain and attract quality teachers, as proponents stated in the voter guide. This is a common sense measure that should be approved. Public schools and community colleges will benefit from this funding. Prop 2 also ensures that funding only be used for projects approved by local school and community college districts. Vote YES on Prop 2.

Proposition 4: Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks. Legislative Statute. YES. This measure authorizes $10 billion in state general obligation bonds for various projects to reduce climate risk and impacts: $3.8 billion for safe drinking water and water resilience; $1.95 billion for wildfire prevention and extreme heat mitigation; $1.2 billion for protection of coastal lands, bays, and oceans; $850 million for clean energy; and $300 million for agriculture. Prop 4 prioritizes projects benefiting disadvantaged communities. It appropriates money from the state general fund to repay the bonds. This measure is a sensible attempt to mitigate climate effects and protect communities. Vote YES on Prop 4.

Proposition 5. Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. YES. Housing is a top issue in California, where the cost to build is high. Local governments often help pay for housing reserved for low-income residents. One problem is that currently, there is a two-thirds approval requirement for local affordable housing bonds to pass. Prop 5 lowers that threshold to 55% for general obligation bonds if they would fund housing assistance or public infrastructure, such as roads or water treatment plants. Recent local election results suggest that an additional 20% to 50% of local bond measures would have passed under Prop 5's lower voter requirement. Given the state's massive shortage of affordable housing for low- and middle-income Californians, Prop 5 is one way to help alleviate that. Prop 5 does not raise taxes. Vote YES on Prop 5.

Proposition 6: Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. YES. This measure amends the California Constitution to remove the current constitutional provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). It prohibits the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from punishing incarcerated persons for refusing a work assignment. It allows incarcerated persons to voluntarily accept work assignments in exchange for credit to reduce their sentences. Currently, those who refuse to work or do other activities can face consequences such as losing the ability to make regular phone calls. Proponents state that Prop 6 removes all forms of slavery from the state's carceral system. It ends forced labor, which constitutes slavery and violates human rights, they state in the voter guide. And they argue that Prop 6 enhances public safety by prioritizing rehabilitation. Vote YES on Prop 6.

Proposition 32: Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute. YES. California's minimum wage is currently $16 per hour, the voter guide states. Prop 32 increases that minimum, as follows: Employers with 26 or more employees would pay $17 hourly for the remainder of 2024 and $18 hourly beginning on January 1, 2025. Employers with 25 or fewer employees would pay $17 hourly beginning January 1, 2025, and $18 hourly beginning January 1, 2026. Thereafter, as existing law provides, the minimum wage annually adjusts for inflation. (In addition to the generally applicable minimum wage described above, current laws establish a higher minimum wage in specified industries, the voter guide states. This measure does not amend those laws.)

Proponents state that there are about 2 million Californians who are working full-time or more and making less than $18 per hour. Prop 32 would help them, and in turn, reduce the burden on taxpayers, who often make up the difference that some corporations aren't honoring. We've recently seen the $20 per hour minimum wage go into effect for fast-food workers. An $18 minimum wage for those who are eligible is a tangible benefit that will help a lot of people. Vote YES on Prop 32.

Proposition 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. Image: From AHF  

Proposition 33: Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute. YES. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is leading this fight — and spending millions of dollars — that would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. According to the voter guide, Costa-Hawkins generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995; (2) single-family homes; and (3) condominiums. This is the third time AHF has taken this measure to the ballot — it lost in 2018 and 2020. We think local government should be able to determine if rent control is right for a jurisdiction, and to work out details so that mom-and-pop landlords aren't adversely affected. Vote YES on Prop 33.

Proposition 34: Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers. Initiative Statute. NO. This measure is backed by the California Apartment Association and affects just one health care provider: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The voter guide states that Prop 34 applies only to health care providers that: (1) spent over $100,000,000 in any 10-year period on anything other than direct patient care; and (2) operated multifamily housing reported to have at least 500 high-severity health and safety violations. An article in the Los Angeles Times last November detailed squalid conditions in many of AHF's units for formerly unhoused people, where many were also under threat of eviction. AHF, the article stated, has revenue of $2.2 billion, drawn largely from its pharmacies, and has spent $300 million sponsoring rent control ballot initiatives.

All this is to say that AHF has its issues. However, we believe writing a state ballot proposition that affects a single agency sets a bad precedent. Some other groups could try the same tactics against other nonprofits if they don't like what those agencies are doing. If people don't want to repeal Costa-Hawkins (see above) they can vote no, which majorities have already done twice.

To be clear, AHF should be spending the bulk of its revenue directly helping clients rather than spending millions of dollars engaged in repeated, failed attempts to repeal the rent control law. Addressing AHF's housing issues is better left to Los Angeles County and city officials, which could adopt regulations, and AHF's board. Vote NO on Prop 34.

Proposition 35: Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. Initiative Statute. YES. Prop 35 makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans (currently set to expire in 2026), which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for health care services for low-income families with children, seniors, disabled persons, and other Medi-Cal recipients. Prop 35 makes the existing health plan tax permanent beginning in 2027. The state would still need federal approval to charge the tax. The tax would continue to be based on the number of people to whom health plans provide health coverage. The proposition allows the state to change the tax, if needed, to get federal approval, within certain limits. Proponents state that Prop 35 will not raise taxes, since it's an extension of a current tax. And it prevents the state from redirecting the tax funds to other purposes. Reliable revenue for Medi-Cal is important for the health care of many people. Vote YES on Prop 35.

Proposition 36: Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute. NO. Prop 36 allows for felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950 — both of which are currently only chargeable as misdemeanors as voters approved with Prop 47 in 2014. According to the voter guide, defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed. Prop 36 also increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes. The measure has divided Democrats. The Legislature recently passed a package of bills that Governor Gavin Newsom signed aimed at combatting retail theft. The laws crack down on the theft and sale of stolen items; increase enforcement and prosecutions; combine values of stolen items to meet felony thresholds; target smash-and-grabs; fight car break-ins and thefts; and eliminate retail theft sunset provisions, according to the governor's office.

We believe Prop 36 is unnecessary, as lawmakers have addressed and continue to work on this problem. We do not think locking up drug users in prison is helpful; more harm reduction and drug treatment programs are needed. Opponents argue in the voter guide that Prop 36 brings back the "drug war" type of tactics from the 1980s, which the state has abandoned since it was a failure. Making simple drug possession a felony will just fill up the state's prisons and negatively affect families. Vote NO on Prop 36.



Never miss a story! Keep up to date on the latest news, arts, politics, entertainment, and nightlife.
Sign up for the Bay Area Reporter's free weekday email newsletter. You'll receive our newsletters and special offers from our community partners.

Support California's largest LGBTQ newsroom. Your one-time, monthly, or annual contribution advocates for LGBTQ communities. Amplify a trusted voice providing news, information, and cultural coverage to all members of our community, regardless of their ability to pay -- Donate today!