By Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association – October 4, 2024
Statewide Propositions:
NO on 2
Why we’re against it
Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost
certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local
match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts
issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax
bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the
declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18
billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary. VOTE NO ON
PROPOSITION 2.
Proposition 3 – HJTA takes no position on this measure
Proposition 3 removes language from the state Constitution that defines marriage as between a
man and woman. It adds the language, “right to marry is a fundamental right.” This measure has
no effect on the current law, because the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal Constitution
protects the right to marry.
NO on 4
Why we’re against it
This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already
has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was
added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to
pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with
interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond
financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to
repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends
more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea. VOTE NO ON
PROPOSITION 4.
NO on 5
Why we’re against it
Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes
by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds
(borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure”
(nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55%
approval instead of the current 66.7%. Local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property
tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for
tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax
bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living
in California, which already has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is
taken into account. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5.
NO on 6
Why we’re against it.
Proposition 6 bans mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. It doesn’t seem fair to
further increase the burden on taxpayers by creating the conditions to negotiate higher wages for
inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison. VOTE
NO ON PROPOSITION 6.
NO on 32
Why we’re against it
Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it
annually for inflation. Unfortunately, raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced
weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in
California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising
the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising
government labor costs. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32.
NO on 33
Why we’re against it
Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental
housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits
on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment
and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent
control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting
the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a
sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential
rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already
rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33.
YES on 34
Why we’re for it
Some nonprofit healthcare organizations that receive federal funds to provide health care
services have abused the system to spend large amounts of money on political causes.
Proposition 34 would end this practice and require that healthcare providers spend most of the
money they receive from a federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34.
Proposition 35 – HJTA takes no position on this measure
California currently taxes managed care organizations (MCOs) such as Anthem Blue Cross and
others. The MCO tax is set to expire in 2026, and we expect the Legislature to make it
permanent. Proposition 35 would also make it permanent but would require the revenue from the
tax to fund Medi-Cal, the government health insurance program for low-income residents,
instead of being used to close gaps in the state budget. About 14 million California residents rely
on the Medi-Cal program for their health care needs.
YES on 36
Why we’re for it
Proposition 36 is the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” backed by law
enforcement groups and retailers. It makes thoughtful changes to Proposition 47 (2014), which
reduced some theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 would get tougher on
third offenses and also offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration.
It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail. The
surge of retail theft, vehicle break-ins and open drug use on California’s streets has increased the
burden on first responders, and on taxpayers, as well as raising insurance costs throughout the
state. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 36.
