The 2024 general election is packed with important decisions for voters. From the United States president to important propositions, residents in California may be feeling overwhelmed by the choices they can make. This year’s election has 10 propositions on California voter’s ballots: Propositions 32, 33, 34 and 36 are especially important. Here’s why voters should pay close attention to them.
Proposition 32
Proposition 32 aims to raise the minimum wage from $16 an hour to $18. For employers with 26 employees or more, the minimum wage would be raised to $17 immediately, and increased to $18 on January 1st, 2025. For businesses with 25 or fewer employees, the minimum wage would increase to $17 this New Year’s and to $18 on January 1st, 2026. This minimum wage increase does not apply to fast food workers because, in April of 2024, a law was amended to raise their minimum wage to $20 an hour.
Supporters of the increase believe this proposition is important because not all industries have legislation to raise wages, according to the Living Wage Act website, paid for by Yes on Proposition 32. Industries that have not done so include retail workers and farm workers. Supporters include the California Federation of Labor Unions and One Fair Wage.
Opponents of Proposition 32 believe that increasing the minimum wage will raise prices, according to Stop Prop 32. Opponents include the California Restaurant Association and the Agricultural Council of California.
Kylie Huang, a third-year student studying psychology, is in support of the measure. Huang explained that in her hometown of San Diego, she often heard her coworkers talk about how minimum wage wasn’t enough to live off of, even when it was raised to $16 an hour.
Proposition 33
Passed in 1995, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act limits control that local governments have on rent control. Proposition 33 would repeal Costa-Hawkins and give local governments more power. A vote no would reinforce this act, barring rent control on single-family homes, apartments and condos built after 1995. A vote yes would repeal the act, allowing local governments the authority to impose specific rent controls, depending on the cities’ needs.
Supporters of Proposition 33 believe that California’s rent is already too expensive. In 2022, Californians spent an average of 34.5% of their income on rent according to USAFacts. This is particularly relevant in Los Angeles, which is currently experiencing a housing crisis. Supporters believe that if passed, the proposition would protect tenants from spontaneous increases in rent, driving renters out of homes. The Affordable Housing Alliance and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation have endorsed the proposition, according to the Yes on 33 website.
Opponents of Proposition 33 believe if local governments in cities can limit rent controls, there will no longer be an incentive to build as it will no longer be as profitable. They believe the lack of incentives will reduce new housing, contributing to the current housing crisis. Opponents include the California Chamber of Commerce and Governor Gavin Newsom according to the NOonProp33 website. Realtors and landlords associations have raised millions of dollars against this measure.
“The people that are backing this bill … have the money to spend to get, gain more control over the rent control situation,” Juan Sanchez Vazquez, a PhD student in Electrical Engineering, said. “It might not be in the interest of someone who’s working a minimum wage job, so I think it really matters who is writing this proposition.”
Proposition 34
Proposition 34 aims to add restrictions to a longtime deal between healthcare providers and the federal government.
CalMatters reported that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) appears to be the only provider impacted.
If healthcare providers serve low-income communities and at-risk patients, they can receive a discount on pharmaceuticals. They can then sell those pharmaceuticals at retail prices and use the profits to expand their services. Proposition 34 would require some providers to spend 98% of the revenue from the discounted pharmaceuticals on patient care.
Supporters of the proposition believe that this will save taxpayers millions of dollars because more funds would be used to serve patients, according to the Yes on 34 website. They also believe that prescription drug costs for all would be cut. Supporters include the ALS Association and the San Francisco Women’s Cancer Network, according to Yes on 34.
Opponents of Proposition 34 believe it to be a “revenge initiative” aimed at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), according to the No on 34 website. Those in opposition include the Dolores Huerta Foundation and CA Democratic Party Renters Council, according to No on 34.
Izzet Kosar, an employee at Keck Hospital of USC, said they believe the proposition is aimed at AHF.
“I don’t think they should go after that organization,” Kosar said. “They do have a lot of power politically, but I think they should let the people decide whether or not that organization stays powerful. It’s going to naturally fluctuate.”
Proposition 36
Proposition 36 decides whether to elevate a person’s charge of a misdemeanor drug or theft crime to a felony if they have two prior convictions.
In 2014, Proposition 47 recategorized nonviolent felonies as misdemeanors. A vote no would keep the punishment for drugs and thefts under $950 a misdemeanor. A vote yes would alter Proposition 47, and those who possess drugs or stole under $950 would receive a felony charge if it is their third offense.
Supporters of Proposition 36 believe that Proposition 47 is too relaxed and has led to an increase in drug possession and theft. According to the Yes on Prop 36 website, supporters believe the proposition will create more accountability for offenders and will dissuade repeat offenders due to the accumulation of stolen values. Meaning, if someone had previously stolen $250 at one store, and $500 at another, the amounts can be consolidated for a higher charge. Supporters include Assemblymember James Ramos and the Mayor of San Francisco London Breed.
Opponents of Proposition 36 believe that the proposition takes on a one-size-fits all approach and unnecessarily criminalizes smaller offenses, according to the Stop Prop 36 website. According to the website, opponents believe the proposition to be similar to tactics used during the war on drugs in the 1980s. Opponents include the California Teachers Association and the Western Center on Law and Poverty, according to the Stop Prop 36 website.
“I’m a little in between, but I do think that on the third time, you would know that this is obviously not something you should do,” Olivia Brancato, a senior majoring in Cinematic Arts, Film and Television Production, said.
She said that she feels like the prison system doesn’t have sufficient resources to rehabilitate people. “I think it could help a little bit, but also I think there’s potential that it could just make things worse and produce more felons,” Brancato said.