As Californians prepare to cast their votes on the upcoming ballot propositions, a critical examination of propositions reveals a complex tapestry of opportunity, equity, and fiscal responsibility. Each proposition presents a distinct vision for California’s future, but they also raise significant questions about priorities and governance in a state often seen as a pioneer of progressive policies but also overtaxed and less representative of the people it is supposed to serve.

Every election cycle I offer a recap of the propositions and measures, statewide and locally. I try to be as neutral as I can and while I will not tell anyone how they should vote, I will tell you how I am voting. Here is my recap:

Proposition 2 - $10 Billion School Bond

Proposition 2 seeks to authorize the state to borrow $10 billion for the repair and modernization of K-12 schools and community colleges. Proponents argue that investing in educational infrastructure is crucial for providing a conducive learning environment, while opponents worry about increasing state debt. Opponents say the state should pay for school repairs out of its budget already. And it is not the only big dollar bond on the ballot – Prop. 4 asks for another $10 billion also. The state would pay $500 million per year for 35 years with interest and adjusting for inflation – would cost the state $17.5 billion in total. Many editorials have said “this is a costly bond for a flawed system.”

Proposition 3 - Language for Same Sex Marriage

Proposition 3 aims to enshrine the right to same-sex marriage in the California state constitution. Same sex marriage has already been legal nationwide since a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Proposition 4 - $10 Billion Combat Climate Change

Proposition 4 would also authorize the state to borrow another ‘$10 billion’, this time focusing on conserving natural resources and combating climate change. While supporters highlight the urgent need for climate action—especially following the Governor's proposed “$54 billion”plan in 2022—critics argue that the state cannot afford such a large debt, especially after facing a significant budget deficit last year. Many voters are inclined to vote "no" on this proposition due to financial concerns. Some editorials have called it “a grab bag of climate pork packed into a costly bond”. I will be voting NO on Prop 4.

Proposition 5 - Lowers Threshold to Increase Local Taxes

Proposition 5 proposes to simplify the process for local governments to borrow money for housing and public infrastructure projects. Currently, a 66.7% (or two-thirds) majority is required to pass bonds for these initiatives. This measure aims to make it easier to fund affordable housing but concerns about potential tax increases on property owners loom large. Critics argue it may primarily benefit politicians rather than address the broader housing crisis. Some editorials have said “this measure makes it easier for local bonds that solves a problem only politicians care about”. I will be voting NO on Prop 5.

Proposition 6 – Prohibits Involuntary Servitude as Punishment For Crimes

Proposition 6 seeks to explicitly prohibit involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. Although California's constitution already prohibits slavery, it still allows for involuntary servitude in certain cases. This measure aims to close that loophole, reinforcing the state’s commitment to human rights. It’s unknown how much implementing Prop 6 would cost. If approved the state may have to pay federal minimum wage to inmates on work assignments.

Proposition 32 - Increases State Minimum Wage

Proposition 32 seeks to raise the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour, up from the current $16 an hour. Proponents argue that the increase is necessary for workers to meet the cost of living. While some cities have already implemented higher minimum wages, this proposition aims to establish a uniform increase for all workers statewide. Opponents, however, caution that raising the minimum wage could drive up costs for businesses, potentially leading to higher prices for consumers and contributing to inflation and costs of living for everyone. As such, many voters are considering a "no" vote, believing that the solution to affordability should not come at the expense of rising costs. Some editorials have said, “if you want to make California more affordable, don’t hike the minimum wage, which only makes California more expensive. I will be voting NO on Prop 32.

Proposition 33 – Rent Control ( Again)

Proposition 33 focuses on rent control, proposing measures that would limit how much landlords can raise rent each year. Supporters believe that rent control is necessary to ease the housing crisis by providing stability for renters. However, opponents argue that it may worsen the housing shortage by discouraging new construction and leading to lower property values, thus exacerbating the overall housing crunch. This is the fourth time Californians will vote on this (sponsored by the AIDS Health Foundation). We Californians have consistently voted NO each time since California currently has a 5% allowable rent increase for all cities. Editorials have said “rent control does not work, it’s that simple.” I will be voting NO on Prop 33, for the fourth time.

Proposition 34 - Protecting Patient Care Funding

Proposition 34 mandates that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and similar providers allocate a minimum of 98% of their revenue from discounted pharmaceuticals directly to patient care. This measure is crucial for ensuring that funds generated through federal discounts for serving low-income patients are used where they are needed most—supporting health services rather than administrative overhead.

For too long, the battle between the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the California Apartment Association has overshadowed the real issue: our community’s health. Prop 34 puts accountability measures in place, demanding that these providers focus on actual health care when taxpayer money is used. I will be voting YES on Prop 34.

Proposition 35: - Secure Funding for Medi-Cal

Prop 35 would require the state to spend money raised from a tax on managed care health plans on Medi-Cal. The Governor on one side thinks elected lawmakers should have leeway in making the state budget while the other side (including both major parties) think placing conditions on the budget is good to make sure certain areas always get money. Especially Medi-Cal, the insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities. Under Prop 35 money from the managed care tax would have to be used to increase Medi-Cal. I am voting YES on Prop 35.

Proposition 36 – Increasing Penalties for Theft and Drug Crimes

Proposition 36 asks California voters to broadly increase the penalties for fentanyl dealers and theft crimes by reclassifying some that are currently misdemeanors as felonies. It has been the one proposition with the most support for passing based on all the polls. 71% of Californians are in favor of it.

The measure attempts to undo parts of Proposition 47, the failed initiative which voters approved a decade ago, that loosened the penalties around the crimes. Some prosecutors, police and retailers say the law has led to more property crime and homelessness. Prop 36 would also create a new category of crime, “treatment-mandated felonies”. People could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison but would still face jail time if they do not finish their treatment. This proposition restores the ability for police and prosecutors to arrest and punish criminals to combat crime waves. I am voting YES on Prop 36.

Los Angeles County Measure A

Measure A is a proposed county initiative that seeks to “double the existing sales tax” to fund more homeless services. Advocates argue that increased funding is essential to tackle the growing homelessness crisis and provide necessary resources for support services.

However, many residents express skepticism, believing the county should demonstrate tangible results from current funding before asking taxpayers for additional financial contributions. As such, a significant number of voters are leaning towards a "no" vote. We all remember how the initial money was spent, or misspent and we should ask whether the county used our taxpayer funds properly and effectively (This tax will also go on indefinitely). Since the previous measure passed our homeless numbers have almost doubled in the past 8 years. Editorials in major papers have said “this charter amendment would double the existing tax to fund homeless services. But we think the county should show us results asking taxpayers for more money”. I agree with them, and I am voting NO on Measure A.

Los Angeles County Measure G

You know it’s controversial when the LA County Board of Supervisors was split 3-2 to even put Measure G on the ballot. This measure will almost double (from 5 to 9) the number of elected supervisors without finding any other revenue sources for the added staffing and costs. The supervisors voting against it said the added costs will take away from other county services. But the serious flaw in the measure is to also have an elected County CEO. Editorials in large newspapers have said “there are some ideas regarding representation, but it includes some deeply flawed provisions, including an elected county CEO, which would politicize what should be a position based on competence”. I see many, many problems with this also nd we should look at it closely before making this error. I will be voting NO on Measure G.

Conclusion: A Call for Informed Choices

As the election date approaches, Californians will need to weigh the implications of these propositions carefully, considering both the potential benefits and the financial ramifications involved.

As we voters prepare for the ballot, it’s crucial to engage deeply with these propositions. Each measure carries potential benefits and significant risks.

In a state as diverse a dynamic as California, these propositions represent more than just policy decisions; they reflect our collective values, priorities, safety and our wallets. As we approach the ballot box, let us choose wisely, ensuring that our votes contribute to a future that is equitable, sustainable, and just for all Californians. I welcome your thoughts and comments, and I may be reached at 562-706-4114 or Mario@Guerrains.com

Mario A. Guerra is the two-time former mayor of Downey and elected California GOP state treasurer. His website is www.marioaguerra.com