As California voters headed to the polls in early November of 2024, they faced a range of critical decisions that could shape the state’s future. Among the items on the ballot were the ten California propositions, covering healthcare, climate change, and criminal justice. Six of them were passed, and four were rejected. However, before we delve into the specific California propositions, let’s define what a ballot proposition is. Ballot propositions are essentially new laws, amendments, or codes that the California electorate can directly vote on. Now let’s break down some of the major 2024 California propositions.

The passage of multiple key propositions in the 2024 California election marked a substantial shift in state policy, and addressed critical issues such as education quality and criminal justice. One such proposition was California Proposition 2. Proposition 2 essentially authorized the state to borrow $10 billion worth of bonds to put towards the improvement of school facilities. This money would be put towards the building and repairing of facilities at K-12 public schools and community colleges. Major benefits of this measure included making basic safety improvements in schools, as many California school buildings are in poor condition with leaky roofs or broken air conditioning. This proposal also targeted low-income districts and areas with more foster youth and non-native English speakers, where local bonds were not generating enough revenue. Drawbacks of this measure, if any, included money for these bonds to come directly from taxpayers and not from the state’s regular budget, therefore adding onto the existing high California state taxes and increasing the burden of California taxpayers. However, from a Mitty student standpoint, we are not directly impacted by any major changes in the public school system, hence, the passage of this measure only adds to our tax dollars without impacting our education. 

Switching gears to criminal justice, the passage of Proposition 36 increased penalties for crimes such as theft and drug trafficking. In the recent election, Prop 36 was overwhelmingly passed by California voters, counteracting Democratic leaders such as Gavin Newsom in the state capitol who opposed this measure as an effort to preserve years of criminal justice reform. The campaign to say “Yes on 36” increased sentences for theft and repeated convictions for drug possession, and also reclassified some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies. As property crime, shoplifting and commercial burglaries dramatically increased in California post pandemic, supporters proposed Prop 36 as a solution to these problems. With clear Republican support and Democratic opposition, Prop 36 also introduced the alternative of a drug treatment program for a new category of crimes as “treatment-mandated felonies.” This allows people to complete a drug treatment program instead of going to prison; however, failure to complete the program will result in prison time. Supporters had argued that drug dependence “pushes people to the street” and having harsher drug penalties is the only way to force people into treatment. However, there are no conclusive studies done to support the notion that harsher punishment will prevent crime. This might result in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars annually towards a cause without considerably reducing crime. Nevertheless, the passage of both Prop 2 and Prop 36 reflects the growing momentum for reform in California, tackling major issues such as education and criminal justice. 

Moving on to a proposition that, although it didn’t pass, will interest many employed Mitty students. Proposition 32, a major talking point in the 2024 California ballot, addressed the concerns many have around income inequality and the rising cost of living in the state by raising the minimum wage statewide. If it had passed, this proposition would have increased California’s minimum wage to $18 an hour, with higher rates for certain fast food and healthcare workers. Supporters of Prop 32 had argued that it was necessary to increase wages to keep up with the pace of inflation and the increasing cost of living— helping low-wage workers afford basic necessities such as housing, healthcare, and food. Many also cited the positive economic impacts of higher wages, such as increased consumer spending as a reason to support the proposition. However, those who opposed the proposition said that the increase in wages would cause a significant strain financially on small businesses, which may potentially result in layoffs and increased prices as business owners have to work to balance higher labor costs. In the end, the debate concerning California’s fair wages and economic conditions has caused many to question the state’s role when it comes to workers compensation and the effects it has on the economy of California.

The results of these propositions can tell us the various, and at times conflicting, values of Californians—whether it’s the push for higher wages for our minimum-wage workers or improvements in education and criminal justice. Ultimately, these propositions will shape the future of the largest state economy in the nation, and at the end of the day, it is up to the voter on shaping the California we see today, into a better tomorrow.