Agenda — Hemet City Council, October 8, 2024 (part 8 of 8)

16.I

Page 954 of 1052 ends

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Round 8, Conditional Award Commitment Palm Communities, City of Hemet, and Kingdom Development, Inc. – Palm Villas at State Contract No. 24-AHSC-18451 and 24-AHSC-18450
August 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

The Department will deem this condition to be unsatisfied if it receives an executed Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Conditional Award that has been substantively modified, altered, or amended in any way. The signed Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Conditional Award form must be submitted to [email protected].

Timely Delivery of Authorization and Organizational Documents.

If not provided at the time of application, the Awardee(s) shall deliver to the Department, within sixty (60) calendar days of the date upon this Conditional Award Commitment, a legally sufficient set of Authorization and Organizational Documents, as further described and specified below. Specifically, the Awardee(s) shall deliver a duly adopted authorizing resolution, as well as a complete and duly filed or adopted set of organizational documents and all amendments (the “Authorization and Organizational Documents”), for each of the following entities as applicable:
each Awardee entity; the ultimate borrower of the Conditional Award funds (the “Borrower”); and each separate legal entity that is part of the Awardee’s or Borrower’s organizational structure. Each entity’s resolution must constitute, to the Department’s reasonable satisfaction, an unconditional, duly adopted, and legally binding authorization of the entity to accept the total amount of these Conditional Award funds, to fully participate in the relevant Department program, and to be legally bound by the requirements of the Department program. The Department may agree to an extension of fifteen (15) calendar days based on the Awardee’s demonstration of necessity.

Note: Local Public Entities, as defined in the above-mentioned NOFA and/or Final Program Guidelines, are not required to submit a complete and duly filed or adopted set of organizational documents and amendments. Both the Conditional Award and this Conditional Award Commitment are subject to Health and Safety Code section 50406, subdivision (p), as subsequently amended (“AB 1010”).

The Department has posted resolution templates on its website as informational guidance. Please note that use of the resolution templates is not compulsory.

However, use of the provided templates will assist in the timely review and approval of the Standard Agreement. While entities may choose to use modified language in their resolutions, Sponsors should be aware that this may delay preparation of the Standard Agreement or, if deemed insufficient, may result in the need to submit a revised resolution.

At any point prior to disbursement, the Department may also require the Awardee(s) to resubmit Authorization and Organizational Documents if the original submittals were determined to be inaccurate or incomplete.

Page 11 of 14 ends

16.I

Page 955 of 1052 ends

Page 4 ends

III. Delivery of Standard Agreement
In an effort to be responsive to each Awardee’s closing needs and to ensure timely commitment of funds, the Department commits to delivering an executed copy of the Standard Agreement relative to this Conditional Award within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving all required documents, including all legally sufficient Authorization and Organizational Docum
ents, in connection with this Project and as applicable.

Please be advised that the form of the Standard Agreement, Exhibits A through D, were posted on the Department’s website and will not be circulated for public comment or otherwise subject to change or negotiation except as may be required to achieve compatibility with the requirements of other governmental programs and third-party lenders.

Your contract is assigned to a Single Point of Contact (SPOC), Jeffery Fong, Housing and Community Development Representative II, at (916) 820-1488 or [email protected], which will serve as your contact for any and all inquiries related to the development and execution of the Standard Agreement. If this project has previously received funding from HCD, this new award will be referred to the same contact as your previous award so as to minimize the points of contact from within HCD. You will receive an email from your SPOC within 48 hours of receipt of your signed Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Conditional Award.

Among the responsibilities of the SPOC will be to maintain contact throughout the next several months as you work to secure all necessary funding sources to begin construction. Your SPOC will be reaching out to you monthly to inquire on status and progress. In the meantime, should you have any changes to the status or make up of your project we ask that you communicate these changes as soon as possible to your assigned SPOC.

IV. Deadline to Secure Permanent Financing
Please note, that the Awardee must secure all permanent financing, including tax credits and bond allocations, within 24 months of the date of the first Department funding award to the Project, consistent with the Department’s Disencu mbrance Policy (Administrative
Notice Number 2022-02: Disencumbrance Policy). Sponsors must demonstrate that all permanent financing is in place allowing the project to commence construction. Failure to meet this requirement shall result in the withdrawal or recapture of this Conditional Award and any other prior or subsequent funds awarded to the Project.

Page 12 of 14 ends

16.I

Page 956 of 1052 ends

Page 5 ends

Congratulations on your successful Application. For further information, please contact your SPOC as outlined in Section III above.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Seeger
Deputy Director
Division of State Financial Assistance
Enclosure: Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Conditional Award form

Page 13 of 14 ends

16.I

Page 957 of 1052 ends

California Department of Housing and Community Development Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Conditional Award Palm Communities, City of Hemet, and Kingdom Development, Inc. (“Awardees”) Palm Villas at State (“Project”)
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities awar
d totaling $35,494,215 (“Conditional
Award”), as detailed below:

AHSC Program Award Components Award Amount Contract Number Loan Award $22,000,000 24- AHSC-18450
Grant Award $13,494,215
24-AHSC-18451
HRI component $0
STI component $13,239,740
TRA component $1,715,115
PGM component $969,360
By signing this Acceptance of Terms and Conditions of Conditional Award, the Awardee acknowledges having read and fully understood the terms and conditions of the Conditional Award Commitment, dated August 23, 2024, in connection with the Project.

In addition, the Awardee acknowledges having read and fully understood all of the Department’s requirements relative to the Conditional Award, including the requirement s set
forth in Administrative Notice Number 2022-22: Disencumbrance Policy, and the Awardee agrees to abide by and comply with those requirements.

In addition, the Awardee(s) must acknowledge that it has reviewed and verified the accuracy of the project report prepared by the Department no later than 7 business days of receipt. _________________________________________________ ______________________ Danavon L. Horn, City Manager Date
Palm Communities
_________________________________________________ ______________________ Mark Prestwich, City Manager Date
City of Hemet
_________________________________________________ ______________________ William Leach, President Date
Kingdom Development, Inc.
** For HCD Use Only **
□ Authorized Representatives Verified
□ All Parties Signed
Date Receive
d: ____________________

Page 14 of 14 ends

16.I

Page 958 of 1052 ends

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - Oct 08 2024
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
John Maier, City Clerk;

☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing

TITLE:

Consideration of 1) Adoption of a Resolution Approving City Positions State Propositions on November 5, 2024 Ballot; and 2) Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Proposition 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

1) Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hemet, California, for the City Council consideration on November 5, 2024, noting the City's support, opposition, neutrality, or no position on various statewide November 2024 ballot measures; and 2) Adopt a Resolution Supporting Proposition 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act.

BACKGROUND:

California voters will consider 10 measures on the November 5, 2024 statewide ballot. This report provides information on each ballot measure and an opportunity for the City to promote advocacy and encourage Hemet residents to vote on Election Day, November 5, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

A summary of each of the measures is listed below, along with a note on the League of California Cities' position for specific propositions. Additional informational materials are attached to this report.

The City Council may provide support, opposition, neutrality, or no position on the various Statewide November 2024 Ballot Measures below:

Page 1 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 959 of 1052 ends

Statewide Ballot Measures

Proposition 2 Authorizes Bonds for Public School and
Community College Facilities
Proposition 3 Constitutional Right to Marriage
Proposition 4
Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water,
Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting
Communities and Natural Lands from Climate
Risks
Proposition 5 Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval
Proposition 6 Allowing Provision Eliminates Constitutional Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons
Proposition 32 Raises Minimum Wage
Proposition 33 Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Proposition 34 Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers
Proposition 35 Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services
Proposition 36 Increases and Allows Felony Charges
Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes

The League of California Cities Advocacy Priorities (Attachment 1 - Exhibit A), the League of Women Voters of California Proposition Summaries (Attachment 3), and the Secretary of State General Voter Guide considering (Attachment 4) are attached to the report for further consideration when advocating positions for the propositions. The League of California Cities advocates for California's 483 towns and cities. The League encourages cities' efforts to be at the center of priority legislative bills when joined by the voices of city leaders. The League of California Cities has taken a Support position on Propositions 4, 5, and 36. The League of California Cities also requested that a Support position be taken separately for Proposition 36.

The League of Women Voters of California provides additional information at the following link:
https://lwvc.org/ballot-recommendations/for Ballot Measure Recommendations. Staff is seeking advocacy direction on positions for the above-mentioned statewide propositions.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:

None.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

Page 2 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 960 of 1052 ends

GOAL THREE: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
To connect and participate in a constant dialogue between members of the community, City staff, and elected officials to promote togetherness and positivity.

Objective 1: Deliver messaging to the Community that connects, is consistent, and relevant.

Objective 2: Increase transparency for the public.

Objective 3: Increase the community's pride within the City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Fiscal impacts are noted on attached materials.

ALTERNATIVE(S):

The City Council may take no position on the various listed ballot measures.

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment 1 - Resolution of the City Council, Adopting Advocacy Positions for Statewide Election on November 5, 2024
Exhibit A - League of California Cities 2024 Advocacy Priorities Attachment 2 - Resolution of the City Council, Adopting Advocacy Position for Proposition 36 on the Statewide Election on November 5, 2024 (1)
Attachment 3 - League of Women Voters of California Proposition Summaries - November 5, 2024 Attachment 4 - Secretary of State General Election Voter Guide Propositions - November 5, 2024 Attachment 5 - League of California Cities Prop 4, 5 & 36 Breakdowns Attachment 6 - League of California Cities Prop 36 Comparison Table

Page 3 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 961 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

CITY OF HEMET

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING, OPPOSING,

REMAINING NEUTRAL, OR NO POSITION FOR VARIOUS
STATE PROPOSITIONS ON THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024
BALLOT
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, the California General Election will include both State and local measures of possible interest to the City of Hemet residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Hemet (“City”) is a member agency of the California League of Cities, a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and may follow the League of California Cities 2024 Advocacy Priorities for further review when considering the various State and local measures (Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the City of Hemet residents may follow Advocacy Priorities that safeguard local revenues, strengthen climate change and disaster preparedness, improve public safety, expand investments in preventing homelessness and increase the supply of affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council may contribute their informed decision to provide general support, opposition, neutrality, or no position on various following State Propositions on the November 5, 2024 Ballot:

1. Proposition 2 Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities
Support Oppose Neutral No Position

Page 4 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 962 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

2. Proposition 3 Constitutional Right to Marriage.

Support Oppose Neutral No Position

3. Proposition 4 Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and
Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks Support Oppose Neutral No Position

4. Proposition 5 Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval
Support Oppose Neutral No Position

5. Proposition 6 Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons
Support Oppose Neutral No Position

6. Proposition 32 Raises Minimum Wage
Support Oppose Neutral No Position

7. Proposition 33 Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Support Oppose Neutral No Position

8. Proposition 34 Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers
Support Oppose Neutral No Position

9. Proposition 35 Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services Support Oppose Neutral No Position

10.Proposition 36 Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes
Support Oppose Neutral No Position
WHEREAS, the City Council encourages every registered voter in the City to vote on Election Day, November 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the ballots for the election must be received by the elections official no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day or be postmarked on or before Election Day and received no later than seven days after Election Day to be counted.

Page 5 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 963 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.FINDINGS - The recitals set forth above are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Resolution. In addition, the City Council approves the findings for their informed decision to provide general support, opposition, neutrality, or no position on various following State Propositions on the November 5, 2024 Ballot:

SECTION 2.EFFECTIVE DATE - This Resolution shall become effective on October 8, 2024.

Page 6 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 964 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 4
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of October, 2024. ____________________________
Joe Males, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

Page 7 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 965 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
State of California )
County of Riverside )
City of Hemet )
I, John Paul Maier, City Clerk of the City of Hemet, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Hemet City Council on the 8th day of October, 2024, and was passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

Page 8 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 966 of 1052 ends

League of California Cities 2024 Advocacy Priorities

1. Safeguard local revenues and bolster local economic development.

Cities are the engine of the state economy. With a looming state budget deficit, it is critical to counter efforts by the state and corporations to erode or skim local revenue.

Cal Cities supports increasing local revenue streams for local governments and opposes any effort to reduce or eliminate existing funding to cities. Cal Cities will use every tool in the toolbox — legislative, legal, and grassroots mobilization — to fight a 2024 ballot measure that represents an existential threat to local control. The measure, sponsored by the California Business Roundtable, would put at risk billions of dollars for essential local services. Cal Cities also supports legislation that will fund a state-local partnership to enhance economic development in these uncertain fiscal times.

2. Strengthen climate change resiliency and disaster preparedness.

The threat of climate change is no less during tough economic times. The state needs to accelerate its efforts to prepare, reduce, and adapt to the ever-changing risks posed by climate change — especially in vulnerable and under-resourced communities.

These risks include wildfires, flooding, drought, and other extreme weather events. Cal Cities will pursue funding strategies, including potentially a bond, that provide cities with the necessary resources to improve community and infrastructure resiliency. Cal Cities will also seek to advance a partnership with state and federal agencies to strengthen essential infrastructure, including modernizing the state’s water supply and energy grid.

3. Improve public safety in California communities.

A spike in retail theft, violent smash-and-grab robberies, fentanyl deaths and illicit drug use, and back-to-back natural disasters, as well as strained social services are creating challenges beyond the capacity of local governments. Cal Cities will partner with the state to advance solutions that help reduce crime, increase emergency service capacity, and provide more support to those residents struggling with substance abuse.

We will work with the Legislature, the Governor, and allies to craft legislation that will reform Proposition 47, while avoiding a return to the days of mass incarceration.

4. Expand investments to prevent and reduce homelessness and increase the supply of affordable housing.

California cities are doing more than ever to get residents off the streets and into safe, stable, and affordable housing. However, the homelessness crisis in the world’s fifth- largest economy continues unabated — fueled in part by a lack of affordable housing.

Cal Cities is calling on the state to provide ongoing funding to bolster local efforts to support individuals experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness as well as strengthen state and local partnerships to improve access to wraparound services, including mental health and substance use treatment. Cal Cities also supports ongoing funding for cities to jumpstart the construction of affordable housing, while ensuring cities retain local decision-making and flexibility to achieve community and state housing goals.

Page 9 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 967 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

CITY OF HEMET

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HEMET, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING PROPOSITION
36, THE HOMELESSNESS, DRUG ADDICTION, AND

THEFT REDUCTION ACT
The City Council of the City of Hemet, California (hereafter referred to as the “City Council”) does resolve as follows:

WHEREAS, While Prop 47 achieved notable success in making California’s criminal justice system more equitable, Prop 47 has also led to unintended consequences over the past decade; and
WHEREAS, Prop 47 has contributed to increases in repeat and often organized retail theft, the shuttering of local businesses, and difficulty convincing people to seek drug and mental health treatment; and
WHEREAS, These unintended consequences can only be corrected by the voters at the ballot box with modest amendments to Prop 47; and WHEREAS, Prop 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act is a bi-partisan measure that provides common sense, targeted reforms to Prop 47 that, with the recently adopted legislative Retail Theft Package, provide more tools to increase safety in our communities; and
WHEREAS, Spikes in retail theft, violent smash-and-grab robberies, fentanyl deaths and illicit drug use, as well as strained social services, are creating challenges beyond the capacity of local governments; and

Page 10 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 968 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, Cities are partnering with the state to advance solutions that help reduce crime and provide more support to residents struggling with substance abuse, while avoiding a return to the days of mass incarceration; and WHEREAS, Prop 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act will define fentanyl as a hard drug, hold individuals convicted of trafficking fentanyl accountable, and grant judges greater discretion in sentencing drug traffickers.

WHEREAS, Breaking the cycle of repeat offenders means addressing the many root causes of retail theft; and
WHEREAS, Prop 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act allows critical behavioral health services, drug treatment, and job training within our justice system for people who are homeless and suffering from mental illness or struggling with substance abuse; and
WHEREAS, It’s time for meaningful and tailored reforms to our justice system to ensure the safety of our communities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council encourages every registered voter in the City to vote on Election Day, November 5, 2024; and
WHEREAS, the ballots for the election must be received by the elections official no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day or be postmarked on or before Election Day and received no later than seven days after Election Day to be counted.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Page 11 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 969 of 1052 ends

CITY OF HEMET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XXX 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SECTION 1.FINDINGS - The City Council of the City of Hemet, California formally expresses support for Prop 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act and the benefit that it provides for our community’s safety.

SECTION 2.EFFECTIVE DATE - This Resolution shall become effective on October 8, 2024.

Page 12 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 970 of 1052 ends

Page 13 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 971 of 1052 ends

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSTAIN: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:
_____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

Page 14 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 972 of 1052 ends

In this general election, California voters will vote for President; U.S. Senator; Representatives in U.S. Congress and the California StateLegislature; and other candidates and proposed laws depending onwhere you live.California voters will also decide on 10 state propositions that areexplained in this Pros & Cons. Propositions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were placedon the ballot by the State Legislature. Propositions 32, 33, 34, 35, and36 have been placed on the ballot by people who collected enoughsignatures.

Visit Vote411.org to see everything on your ballot, find your pollingplace, and get unbiased information on all your voting choices. © 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 1 How to Evaluate Ballot Propositions
General Election • November 5, 2024
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350 - #5001 Sacramento, CA 95814916.442.7215 • 888.870.VOTE Press Date: September 4, 2024
The League of Women Voters of
California Education Fund
(LWVCEF), a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan
organization, encourages informed
and active participation in
government and works to increase
understanding of major public
policy issues. The LWVCEF does
not support or oppose candidates
or political parties.

The Pros & Cons is a nonpartisan
explanation of state propositions,
with supporting and opposing
arguments. The arguments come
from many sources and are not
limited to those presented in the
Official Voter Information Guide.

The LWVCEF does not judge the
merits of the arguments or
guarantee their validity. The
LWVCEF grants permission for the
Pros & Cons to be reproduced.
online at CAvotes.org.

League of Women Voters of
California Education Fund
Examine what the measure seeks to accomplish. Do you agree withthose goals? Is the measure consistent with your ideas about government? Do youthink the proposed changes will make things better? Who are the real sponsors and opponents of the measure? Check wherethe money is coming from on Power Search.

Is the measure written well? Will it create conflicts in law that mayrequire court resolution or interpretation? Is it “good government,” orwill it cause more problems than it will resolve? Does the measure create its own revenue source? Does it earmark,restrict, or obligate government revenues? If so, weigh the benefit ofsecuring funding for this measure against the cost of reducing overallflexibility in the budget.

Does the measure mandate a government program or service withoutaddressing how it will be funded? Does the measure deal with one issue that can be easily decided by aYES or NO vote? Or, is it a complex issue that should be thoroughlyexamined in the legislative arena? If the measure amends the Constitution, consider whether it reallybelongs in the Constitution. Would a statute accomplish the samepurpose? All constitutional amendments require voter approval; what weput into the Constitution would have to come back to the ballot to bechanged.

Be wary of distortion tactics and commercials that rely on image but tellnothing of substance about the measure. Beware of half truths.

This publication is available

Page 15 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 973 of 1052 ends

THE SITUATION
The Legislature placed Proposition 2 on the
ballot.

California has approximately 10,000 public
schools and 115 community colleges. Many
schools and community colleges have older,
outdated facilities. Many need health and
safety repairs, renovations, and new
classrooms. According to a 2020 publication
from the Public Policy Institute of California,
38% of California students attend schools that
don't meet minimum facility standards. This
includes 25% of students attending schools
with damaged floors, walls, or ceilings, and
14% attending schools with malfunctioning
electrical systems. 15% of students attend
schools with extreme deficiencies, such as gas
leaks, power failures, and structural damage.

The state and the school districts usually
share the cost for renovation and new
construction almost equally. The state uses
voter-approved bonds for its share of these
costs.

THE PROPOSAL
If passed, Proposition 2 would authorize $10
billion in state general obligation funds for
repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities
at K-12 public schools (including charter
schools) and community colleges. Of that
amount the bonds would be allocated in the
following way:

FISCAL EFFECTS
The state’s estimated cost to repay this bond
would be about $500 million each year for 35
years. The effect on local governments would
depend on the choices that school districts and
community colleges make about building repairs
and new buildings.
$8.5 billion (or 85% of total bond amount) for
public schools, including charter schools.
$1.5 billion (or 15% of total bond amount) for
community colleges.

A small portion of new construction and
renovation funds must be set aside for small
school districts.

Up to $115 million to be used to reduce lead
levels in water at public school sites.

The state would pay a higher share of project
costs for school districts with lower assessed
property values and have a higher share of
students who are low-income, English
learners, or foster youth.

Authorizes Bonds for Public School and
Community College Facilities
THE QUESTION: Should the state authorize $10 billion in bonds to build new, or renovate existing, public school and community college facilities? Continues on Next Page

Page 16 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 974 of 1052 ends

SUPPORTERS SAY
Provides funding for outdated facilities
needing repairs and upgrades to meet basic
health safety standards.

Provides strict taxpayer accountability
protections.

Protects local control. Funding can only be
used for projects approved by local school
and community college districts, with local
community input.

OPPONENTS SAY
California already has over $109 billion of
outstanding and unissued bonds.

Sacramento politicians overspend, issue
bonds, and punish us with tax hikes.

Tell politicians to prioritize education funding
over free healthcare for illegal immigrants in
our state budget.

Authorizes Bonds for Public School and
Community College Facilities

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters: Yes on Prop 2 yesprop2ca.com
Opponents: Assemblyman Bill Essayli, California State Legislature At press time there is no organizedcampaign website.

Continued from Previous Page
THE QUESTION: Should the state authorize $10 billion in bonds to build new, or renovate existing, public school and community college facilities?

Page 17 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 975 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 4 Proposition 3
Constitutional Right to Marriage
Legislative Constitutional Amendment
THE SITUATION The California Constitution contains anoutdated and unenforceable provision stating“Only marriage between a man and a womanis valid or recognized in California.” Thelanguage was inserted as a result of thepassage of Proposition 8 in 2008. After federalcourt decisions holding that the provision wasunconstitutional under the 14th Amendmentof the U.S. Constitution, California hasrecognized same-sex marriage. In 2015 theU.S. Supreme Court held that states mustallow and recognize same-sex marriage.

THE PROPOSAL Prop 3 would repeal the outdated languageand amend the state Constitution to providethat the right to marry is a fundamental right,and this fundamental right is in furtherance ofthe rights to enjoy life, liberty, safety,happiness and privacy, and the rights to dueprocess and equal protection. Theseamendments would protect both same-sexand interracial marriages.

The legislature placed this measure on theballot to bring the California Constitution inline with existing law that gives same-sexcouples the right to marry, as set forth by theU.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v Hodges andthe federal Respect for Marriage Act. Byplacing the freedom to marry in the CaliforniaConstitution, the state would provideprotections in the event that there is a rollbackon protections currently afforded at thefederal level.

FISCAL EFFECTS
No changes in revenues or costs are estimated for
state or local governments.

THE QUESTION: Should the California Constitution be amended to define marriage as a fundamental right for all regardless of sex or race and remove language that states that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

FOR MORE INFORMATION

SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop 3 proactively protects against future
attempts to restrict marriage rights for same-
sex or interracial couples.

The amendment aligns the state Constitution
with the law as it is today and reaffirms the
freedom to marry as a fundamental right.

The amendment does not change any laws
regarding age requirements, the number of
people in a marriage, or existing rights of
clergy to refuse to perform a marriage.

OPPONENTS SAY
Because same-sex marriage is already legal,
the amendment fixes a problem that does not
exist.

The amendment’s language is unclear and
eliminates all rules for marriage.

Without safeguards such as age, genetic
relationship and the number of participants,
the amendment opens the door to child
marriage, incest and polygamy.

Supporters:

Freedom to Marry
yesonprop3ca.com
Opponents:

California Family Council
californiafamily.org/proposition3

Page 18 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 976 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 5 Proposition 4
Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water,
Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities
and Natural Lands from Climate Risks
Legislative Statute

THE SITUATION
Destructive forest fires, droughts and floods
are becoming more common in California.

Climate change is impacting farming, water
quality, and wildlife. Many people don’t have
access to safe drinking water. At the same
time, a recent budget deficit led to $9 billion in
cuts from programs meant to reduce pollution
and greenhouse gas. According to California’s
4th Climate Assessment (Table 6) the cost of
climate change for California could be more
than $113 billion annually by 2050 (mostly
from human mortality). Climate change affects
all Californians, with most impacts hitting
those least able to afford countermeasures.

THE PROPOSAL
Prop 4 would let the state issue $10 billion in
general obligation bonds. The proceeds of the
sale of bonds would be allocated as follows:
$850 Million for Clean Air. For offshore wind
and expansion of port infrastructure, and
projects to support clean energy transmission.
$700 Million for Parks. For state and
neighborhood park creation, expansion,
renovation, and maintenance.
$450 Million for Extreme Heat Mitigation.

For grants for urban greening and community
resilience centers for cooling and benefits
during a disaster.
$300 Million for Agricultural Lands. To
improve the climate resilience and
sustainability of agricultural lands, including a
series of programs benefiting low-income and
historically marginalized groups.

THE QUESTION: Should voters let the state sell $10 billion in bonds for various projects to reduce climate risks and impacts?
$3.8 Billion for Water. To protect and
increase state water supply and water
quality, reduce flood risk and improve
stormwater management, and protect and
restore rivers, lakes and streams.
$1.5 Billion for Wildfires and Forests. To
improve local fire prevention capacity,
improve forest health and resilience, and
reduce the risk of wildfire spread.
$1.2 Billion for Coastal Resilience. For
coastal and flood management primarily
associated with sea-level rise.
$1.2 Billion for Biodiversity Protection.

For grant programs for fish and wildlife,
including tribal nature-based climate
solutions.

Continues on Next Page
Some funding would be used to offset budget
cuts. Most funding would create loans and
grants for:

Local governments
Native American tribes
Non-profit groups
Businesses
State-run agencies
Forty percent of funding must go to activities
that will help lower-income communities or
communities hit the hardest by environmental
changes and disasters.

Page 19 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 977 of 1052 ends

OPPONENTS SAY
The goals identified in Prop 4 should be
funded within our current state budget.

Taxpayers should not be asked for $10 billion
more in the form of a bond that will cost
nearly double to repay.

Prop 4 provides funding for unproven
technologies with no real evidence of
success.

Prop 4 lacks fiscal accountability and specific
standards for measuring success.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

SUPPORTERS SAY
California faces growing threats from
wildfires, water pollution, extreme heat, and
other disasters. The right investments now
could help prevent future damage and costs.

California is already paying a price for failing
to prepare for drought and climate change.

Prop 4 helps us shift from disaster response
to disaster prevention.

Prop 4 makes efficient, sensible investments
in proven solutions
Supporters:

Californians for Safe Drinking Water and
Wildfire Prevention
yesonprop4ca.com
Opponents:

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
hjta.org/hjta-ballot-measure-
recommendations
Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water,
Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities
and Natural Lands from Climate Risks
THE QUESTION: Should voters let the state sell $10 billion in bonds for various projects to reduce climate risks and impacts?
Continued from Previous Page

FISCAL EFFECTS
The Legislative Analysts’ Office estimates paying
back the bond loan would cost the state $400
million a year for 40 years. However, the bonds
would fund projects that reduce future risk and
the costs of damage from disasters.

Page 20 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 978 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 7 Proposition 5
THE SITUATION Bonds are a form of long-term borrowing usedby cities, counties and special districts. Bondholders are repaid with interest and therepayment funds come from increasedproperty taxes. Local bond measures currentlyrequire approval of two-thirds of voters. Thestate of California is in critical need of moreaffordable housing. A typical house here costsaround twice the national average and rentsare about 50% higher than in other states.Upgrades to outdated local infrastructure likeroads, hospitals, fire stations and watertreatment facilities are also needed.

THE PROPOSAL
Prop 5 would:

Legislative Constitutional Amendment

SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop 5 gives local voters more autonomy to
address the unique housing and infrastructure
needs in their own communities.

Prop 5 does not raise taxes.

Qualifying bond measures would have strict
accountability provisions, ensuring the funds
are appropriately spent in the jurisdiction that
approved them.

Lower the voting requirement so that some
types of local bond measures could pass
with 55% of the vote instead of two-thirds
of the vote. This lower voting requirement
applies to housing program bonds for low-
income families, seniors, people with
disabilities, veterans, and other groups. It
could also be used to improve
infrastructure for police, flood and fire
protection, libraries, public health, and
public transit.

Require those bonds to adhere to specific
accountability provisions such as citizen
oversight committees and annual
independent audits.

Apply to any qualifying local bond measure
passed in the November 2024 election.

FISCAL EFFECTS
The Legislative Analyst believes that if Prop 5
were to pass it would likely mean that more
local bond measures would pass, resulting in
increased funding for housing assistance and
public infrastructure. The amount of increase
could be at least a couple billion dollars over
the life of the bonds and would vary across
local governments. If more bonds were
approved then local governments would have
more costs, which would be paid with higher
property taxes. The impact on California’s state
budget is uncertain. There are possible long
term state savings if local governments take
greater responsibility for affordable housing.

Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and
Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval
THE QUESTION: Shall local bond measures to fund housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians and public infrastructure projects be allowed to pass with 55% voter approval instead of the 66.7% approval currently required?
Continues on Next Page

Page 21 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 979 of 1052 ends

OPPONENTS SAY
Prop 5 was written by politicians to push the
cost of infrastructure onto local governments
which increases debt.

Californians already struggle with the highest
cost of living in the nation and Prop 5 would
make everything more expensive.

Prop 5 removes protections that California
Constitution has provided taxpayers for many
years.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Continued from Previous Page
Supporters:

YES on Prop 5
yesonprop5.org
Opponents:

Protect Local Taxpayers
VoteNoProp5.com
Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and
Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval
THE QUESTION: Shall local bond measures to fund housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians and public infrastructure projects be allowed to pass with 55% voter approval instead of the 66.7% approval currently required?
Legislative Constitutional Amendment

Page 22 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 980 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 9 Proposition 6
Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing
Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons
THE SITUATION California’s Constitution mirrors the 13thAmendment of the U.S. Constitution, whichallows for involuntary servitude as punishmentfor crimes. Although no courts explicitly order forced laboras a part of criminal sentencing, it is standardpractice to force incarcerated people toperform labor. California is among 16 stateswith an exception clause for involuntaryservitude in its state constitution. Mostrecently, voters in Alabama, Oregon,Tennessee, and Vermont removed involuntaryservitude language from their stateconstitutions.More than 94,000 Californians are currently instate prison. Black people aredisproportionately represented in the prisonpopulation - accounting for 28% despitemaking up less than 6% of California's overallpopulation.

THE PROPOSAL
Proposition 6 would amend the California
Constitution to end mandatory work
assignments for state prisoners. It would make
employment voluntary for incarcerated people
and would protect them from being disciplined
for refusing a work assignment. It would
authorize credits for incarcerated people who
voluntarily participate in work assignments.
that will go into effect if Prop 6 passes, explicitly
exempts California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (CDCR) from minimum wage
laws. It also specifies that the compensation for
work assignments will be set through regulations.

The costs will also depend on whether courts
require prisoners to be paid minimum wage for
their work. Any potential increase or decrease in
state and local criminal justice costs likely would
not exceed the tens of millions of dollars each
year (annually).

THE QUESTION: Should the California Constitution be amended to: (1) remove the provision that allows involuntary servitude to be used as punishment for a crime; (2) prohibit incarcerated people from being punished for refusing a work assignment; and (3) allow incarcerated people to voluntarily accept work assignments in exchange for credit to reduce their sentences? Legislative Constitutional Amendment

SUPPORTERS SAY
Involuntary servitude is an extension of
slavery. There's no room for slavery in our
constitution, which should reflect our values
in 2024.

Proposition 6 prioritizes rehabilitation for
incarcerated people by allowing them to
choose work assignments that enable
participation in programs that facilitate
personal growth and transformation.

Proposition 6 was placed on the ballot by
California state lawmakers with bipartisan
support.

OPPONENTS SAY
There are no official opponents

FISCAL EFFECTS
Fiscal effects are uncertain. Proposition 6
doesn’t mandate wages and a related law,

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:

Yes on Prop 6
voteyesoncaprop6.com
Opponents:

There are no official opponents

Page 23 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 981 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 10 Proposition 32
Raises Minimum Wage
THE SITUATION California's statewide minimum wage is now$16 an hour, with yearly increases based oninflation. Yearly increases range from $0 if theinflation rate is zero or less, to 3.5% if inflationis 3.5% or more.

Some California workers already haveminimum wages higher than $16 an hour andhigher than the proposed rate ($18 per hour) inProp 32. These include fast-food workers,healthcare workers, and workers in Californiacities with their own minimum wage laws.

THE PROPOSAL Prop 32 would increase California's currentstatewide $16 an hour minimum wage eachyear until it reaches $18 an hour by January 1,2026. Minimum wage for employers with 26 ormore employees would increase to $18 anhour in 2025. Employers with 25 or feweremployees would move to $17 an hour in2025, and $18 an hour in 2026. Prop 32 wouldnot change industry specific or local minimumwages.

Inflation adjustments would pause temporarilywhile the minimum wage is increased in 2025and 2026. In 2027, yearly increases tominimum wage would resume based oninflation.

A higher minimum wage would likely increase
business costs and decrease profits.

Businesses may set higher prices for their
products and services to offset decreased
profits. The overall price increase from
Proposition 32 likely would be smaller than
one-half of 1 percent.

Reduced profits for business means they will
pay less tax. The decrease in tax revenue will
not be more than a few hundred million
dollars each year, out of an overall revenue
collection of about $200 billion each year.

The number of jobs in the state could go up or
down. The change in the number of jobs
would likely be less than one quarter of a
percent.

State and local government costs could go up
or down, because Prop 32 will increase costs
in some way and decrease them in others.

State and local governments will have to pay
higher wages, which will increase costs. At
the same time, Prop 32 will reduce the
number of people enrolled in health and
human services programs, such as Medi-Cal.

The enrollment changes would likely reduce
state and local government costs. With these
factors combined, state and local government
costs could go up or down and the change
would not likely exceed the high hundreds of
millions of dollars annually. Total state and
local government spending in California is
greater than $500 billion annually.FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 32 could have a wide range of
economic effects:

Higher wages. A higher minimum wage
tends to push up wages for other workers.

Employees making a bit more than $18 an
hour would also likely see a pay increase.

Initiative Statute
Continues on Next Page
THE QUESTION: Should California raise its statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour by January 1, 2026, and then each year based on inflation?

Page 24 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 982 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 11 Proposition 32
Raises Minimum Wage

SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop 32 will improve the standard of living
for millions of workers in California. Today,
many full-time workers can’t afford the
cost of living in California.

Prop 32 will improve the economy by
making it so that people can increase
spending on rent, groceries, and other basic
necessities. Increased spending will create
more jobs and boost local economies.

Prop 32 will alleviate taxpayer burden.

Taxpayers should not have to subsidize
some corporations paying extremely low
wages, enabling them to keep record level
profit for owners.

THE QUESTION: Should California raise its statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour by January 1, 2026, and then each year based on inflation?

OPPONENTS SAY
Prop 32 will hurt businesses, especially
small businesses that are more vulnerable
to the impact of higher operating costs.

Prop 32 will result in higher prices and
cause job loss.

Prop 32 will increase government
expenses and deficits. This may result in
fewer government services or increased
taxes.

Initiative Statute

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:

Yes on the California Living Wage Act
livingwageact.com
Opponents:

Californians Against Job Losses and
Higher Prices
stopprop32.com
Continued from Previous Page

Page 25 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 983 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 12 Proposition 33
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact
Rent Control on Residential Property
THE SITUATION Housing in California is expensive. Renters heretypically pay about 50% more for housing thanin other states, and in some areas, rents aremore than double the national average. This isbecause there isn't enough housing foreveryone who wants to live in California, sorenters have to compete, which drives up theprices.

To help with this, some cities in California haverent control laws that limit how much landlordscan increase rent each year. About one-quarterof Californians live in areas with rent control,like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose.

Additionally, a state law limits most landlordsfrom raising rent by more than 5% plusinflation (up to 10%) each year, and this law isin effect until 2030. However, another statelaw, called the Costa-Hawkins Rental HousingAct, restricts local rent control in three ways: itdoesn’t allow rent control on single-familyhomes, on any housing built after February 1,1995, and it doesn’t let local laws control therent a landlord can charge a new tenant. Rentcontrol can only limit rent increases for existingtenants.

THE PROPOSAL Prop 33 says the state government cannot limitlocal governments’ power to expand or limitrent control. In essence, it would repeal theCosta Hawkins Rental Act. It would allow citiesand counties to regulate rents for any type ofhousing property they choose. It would notmatter when the property was built or what FISCAL EFFECTS The impact on renters and landlords woulddepend on how many properties are covered byrent control and how much rent increases arelimited. Local governments and voters woulddecide these factors. On the one hand, expandedrent control would provide some people with moreaffordable housing. On the other hand, housingscarcity could occur if landlords sell theirproperties rather than rent them out. And thevalue of rental properties could decrease becausepotential buyers might not want to pay as muchfor these properties.

The impact on local budgets would depend onhow many cities and counties pass rent controllaws and what landlords do. The measure wouldlikely reduce the amount of money cities,counties, special districts, and schools receivefrom property taxes. This decrease could be in thetens of millions of dollars each year. Cities orcounties will also need to spend money to enforcerent control laws. These costs will likely be paidby landlords.

Initiative Statute
Continues on Next Page
THE QUESTION: Should the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (a state law) be repealed so local governments can regulate rents?
type of building it is. Prop 33 would not changeexisting rent control laws or create new rentcontrol laws. It would not change a landlord’sright to a fair rate of return on their investment.

Page 26 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 984 of 1052 ends

SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop 33 lets local governments enact rent
control to protect renters and allow renters
to stay in their homes and apartments
while more affordable housing is built.

Prop 33 allows local governments to decide
whether and how much to control rents
based on the unique situations in their
communities
Billionaire corporate landlords are currently
calling the shots and profit from the lack of
housing supply.

OPPONENTS SAY
Prop 33 could increase housing costs and
block new affordable housing from being
built. This could worsen the housing crisis.

Prop 33 could eliminate homeowner and
renter protections that already exist and
could lead to overturning other state
affordable housing laws..

Prop 33 could reduce home values.

Initiative Statute

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:

Yes on 33
Yeson33.org
Opponents:

No on Prop 33
noonprop33.com
Continued from Previous Page
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact
Rent Control on Residential Property
THE QUESTION: Should the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 (a state law) be repealed so local governments can regulate rents?

Page 27 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 985 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 14 Proposition 34
Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers
THE SITUATION Medi-Cal is a joint federal-state program thatprovides health coverage for low-incomepeople. This coverage includes the cost ofprescription drugs. In 2019, the state adopteda single approach called “Medi-Cal Rx.” Medi-Cal Rx is not reflected in state law, but it is theapproach used to pay for drugs in the Medi-Calsystem.

The Federal Drug Discount Program providesdiscounts on drugs to certain healthcareproviders. To qualify for these discounts,providers must meet certain rules. Eligibleproviders are public or private nonprofits thatfocus on serving low-income people.

According to the federal government, thefederal drug discount program intends to alloweligible providers to increase services andserve more low-income patients. Federal andstate law, however, does not directly restricthow providers spend their revenue fromfederal drug discounts.

THE PROPOSAL If passed, Prop 34 would add Medi-Cal Rx tostate law.

FISCAL EFFECTS
According to the Legislative Analyst, there would
be increased state costs, likely in the millions of
dollars annually, to enforce new rules on affected
healthcare entities. Affected entities would pay
fees to cover these costs.

THE QUESTION: Should certain healthcare providers be required to spend 98% of revenues from a federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care and should the state be permanently authorized to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices? Initiative Statute
Restricts How Certain Entities Spend
Revenue From Federal Discounts.

Health care providers that participate in
Medi-Cal Rx may be restricted if they (a)
spend over $100 million in any 10 years on
things besides direct patient care and (b)
own and operate multifamily housing units
with at least 500 have serious health
violations in their properties. Affected
healthcare providers would have to spend
at least 98 percent of their net revenue
earned in California on healthcare services
provided directly to patients. They would
also have to submit timely and accurate
reports detailing the revenue received and
the expenditures of that revenue.

Establishes Penalties for Violating Rules.

The four penalties that would apply to
violators of these provisions would include
loss of state tax-exempt status, loss of
license, loss of state contracts or grants,
and loss of eligibility to serve in leadership
roles in state health plans, pharmacies, or
clinics.

Continues on Next Page

Page 28 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 986 of 1052 ends

SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop. 34 will drastically cut the cost of
prescription drugs for Medi-Cal patients by
permanently authorizing the State of
California to negotiate lower Medi-Cal
prescription drug costs.

Prop 34 requires abusers of the new rules to
provide healthcare to low-income patients
according to their original mission.

Prop 34 will require the designated healthcare
providers to spend 98% of their taxpayer-
generated revenues on direct patient care,
which should be their main mission.

OPPONENTS SAY
Prop 34 is an attempt by the California
Apartment Association to harm a specific
healthcare provider, the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation, that supports rent control.

Prop 34 weaponizes the initiative process
so no organization in the future will be safe
from retribution by wealthy opponents.

Prop 34 is not necessary because Medi-Cal
already has a discount drug program.

Initiative Statute

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:

California Apartment Association
caanet.org
Opponents:

Vote No on 34
noon34.org
Continued from Previous Page
Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers
THE QUESTION: Should certain healthcare providers be required to spend 98% of revenues from a federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care and should the state be permanently authorized to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices?

Page 29 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 987 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 16 Proposition 35
Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services THE SITUATION California currently imposes a tax on healthcare plans. The tax is not permanent andneeds to be approved every few years by theCalifornia Legislature and the federalgovernment. It was last approved in 2023 andwill expire at the end of 2026 unless it'sapproved again. When matched with federalfunds, this tax generates revenue that helpspay for health care services for low-incomefamilies, seniors, disabled persons, and otherMedi-Cal recipients. Medi-Cal is California'sMedicaid program, providing health coverageto eligible low-income residents.

The way this tax works has changed over time,but right now, health plans are taxed based onthe number of people they cover, includingthose in Medi-Cal. Some of the tax revenuehelps pay for existing Medi-Cal costs, whichreduces the amount of money the state has tospend from its General Fund. Some of it isused to increase funding for Medi-Cal andother health programs. For example, the stateis using this money to raise payments todoctors and other health care providers inMedi-Cal.

THE PROPOSAL Proposition 35 would make the existing tax onmanaged health care plans permanent. Therevenue generated would fund Medi-Calservices and other specified healthcareprograms. Key provisions include:

FISCAL EFFECTS
According to the Legislative Analyst's estimate:

THE QUESTION: Should California make permanent an existing tax on managed health care plans to provide ongoing funding for Medi-Cal and other health care services? Making the existing tax on managed health
care plans permanent, subject to federal
approval.

Requiring that revenues be used only for
specified Medi-Cal services, in ways
different from the current distribution of
funds. These services include primary and
specialty care, emergency care, family
planning, mental health, and prescription
drugs.

Prohibiting the use of these revenues to
replace existing Medi-Cal funding.

Capping administrative expenses and
requiring independent audits of programs.

In the short term (the next few years) there
will be no changes
Beginning in 2027:

Increased funding for Medi-Cal and
other health programs between roughly
$2 billion and $5 billion annually
(including federal matching funds).

Increased state costs between roughly
$1 billion to $2 billion annually to
implement funding increases.

In the long term:

Unknown effect on state tax revenue,
health program funding, and state
costs.

Fiscal effects depend on many factors,
such as whether the Legislature would
continue to approve the tax on health
plans in the future if Proposition 35 is
not passed by voters.

Continues on Next Page
Initiative Statute

Page 30 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 988 of 1052 ends

SUPPORTERS SAY
Protects and expands access to health care
for millions of Californians, including children,
low-income families, seniors, and people with
disabilities.

Provides dedicated, ongoing funding for
critical health care services without raising
taxes on individuals.

Improves access to primary care, specialty
care, emergency services, and mental health
treatment.

Includes strong accountability measures to
ensure funds are spent as intended.

OPPONENTS SAY
No arguments against Proposition 35 were
submitted
Initiative Statute

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:

Protect Our Healthcare
voteyes35.com
Opponents:

There were no arguments submitted in
opposition to Prop 35
Continued from Previous Page
Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services THE QUESTION: Should California make permanent an existing tax on managed health care plans to provide ongoing funding for Medi-Cal and other health care services?

Page 31 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 989 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 18 Proposition 36
Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes
THE SITUATION The law divides crimes into one of two generalcategories: a felony or a misdemeanor.Felonies are considered by the legal system tobe the most severe crimes and can result instate prison or county jail time for more thanone year. The sentence for a felony dependson the specific crime and the defendant’shistory of other criminal convictions. Lesssevere crimes are called misdemeanors. Thesentence for a misdemeanor can be a fine,some sort of supervision, or time in a countyjail for no more than one year.

In 2014, voters passed Proposition 47, whichchanged some crimes from felonies tomisdemeanors. For example, it reducedshoplifting (stealing items worth $950 or less)from a felony charge to a misdemeanor unlessthe accused person had prior convictions forserious crimes. Drug possession became amisdemeanor as well. Prop 47 also createdthe Safe Neighborhood and School Fund,which funneled savings from lowerincarceration rates to mental health and drugtreatment programs, programs to keep kids inschool, and for victim services.

One of Prop 47’s purposes was to reduceovercrowding in state prisons that had beenruled unconstitutional by the U.S. SupremeCourt in 2011. Since 2014, the prisonpopulation has decreased and the moneysaved has been redirected toward the SafeNeighborhood and School Fund.

THE PROPOSAL Proposition 36 would turn somemisdemeanors into felonies, make somesentences longer, and require some sentencesbe served in prison instead of county jail. Forexample:

THE QUESTION: Should California allow people to be charged with felonies for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions? Initiative Statute
If someone has two past theft convictions,
then shoplifting could be charged as a
felony with a possible 3-year sentence.

A person who gives or sells an illegal drug
to someone who suffers a major injury
from using it could receive a longer prison
term instead of a jail sentence. This
includes drugs like psychedelic
mushrooms and peyote.

If someone with two or more past drug
convictions possesses certain drugs, like
fentanyl or cocaine, they could be charged
with a felony. If the judge decides that
someone is “eligible” or “suitable” they
must be sent for drug or mental health
treatment. If not, they could be sent
straight to jail or prison. If someone
finishes treatment, the charges will be
dismissed. If not, they could be sent to jail
or prison.

Prop 36 also requires that people convicted ofselling or providing certain drugs, like fentanyland cocaine, receive a warning by the courtthat they could be charged with murder if theydo it again and someone dies as a result. Thispractice could increase the likelihood of amurder conviction for the warned person.

Continues on Next Page

Page 32 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 990 of 1052 ends

© 2024 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund General Election * November 5, 2024Page 19 Proposition 36
Prop 36 will reduce crime and substance
abuse by mandating treatment for felony
drug offenders.

OPPONENTS SAY
The law already requires felonies for
smash-and-grab robberies, drug
trafficking, and repeat theft - the purpose
of Prop 36 is to increase prison time for
unrelated crimes.

Prop 36 will make California less safe by
reducing funding for crime prevention,
treatment, rehabilitation and services for
crime victims.

Prop 36 would cost taxpayers billions to
imprison more people without reducing
crime.

Initiative Statute

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters:

Californians for Safer Communities
voteyesprop36.com
Opponents:

Stop Prop 36
stopprisonscam.org
Continued from Previous Page
FISCAL EFFECTS Proposition 36 would have financial impacts onboth the state and local governments, but theextent of these effects is uncertain and woulddepend on factors like decisions made by localprosecutors.

The state would experience higher costs, likely inthe tens of millions to hundreds of millions ofdollars each year, from an increased prisonpopulation and the length of time it takes toresolve felonies versus misdemeanors. At thelocal level, Proposition 36 would likely increasethe number of people in county jails and undercommunity supervision. Local courts,prosecutors, and public defenders would also seeincreased workloads due to the more complexfelony cases. Overall, local criminal justice costscould rise by tens of millions of dollars each year.

Proposition 36 would reduce the state savingscreated by Proposition 47, which are currentlyused for mental health and drug treatment,school programs, and victim services. Thisreduction could be in the low tens of millions ofdollars annually.

SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop 36’s tougher laws against “smash-and-
grab” thefts will protect businesses in every
community.

Prop 36 will allow prosecutors to combine the
value of items stolen from multiple thefts to
increase accountability for serial thieves.

Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes
THE QUESTION: Should California allow people to be charged with felonies for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions?

Page 33 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 991 of 1052 ends

2 PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 2 COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 70 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Authorizes $10 billion in state general
obligation bonds for repair, upgrade,
and construction of facilities at K–12
public schools (including charter
schools) and community colleges.
• Provides funding for new facilities,
to improve school health and safety
conditions at existing facilities, and
for classroom upgrades (e.g., science,
engineering, transitional kindergarten,
and vocational classrooms).
• Expands eligibility for fnancial
hardship grants for small and
disadvantaged school districts.
• Provides higher percentage of
state matching funds to schools
demonstrating greatest need.
• Requires public hearings and
performance audits.
• Appropriates money from General
Fund to repay bonds.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE

OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL
IMPACT:
• Increased state costs of about
$500 million annually for 35 years to
repay the bond.

State Bond Cost Estimate
Amount borrowed $10 billion
Average repayment cost $500 million
per year over
35 years
Source of repayment General tax
revenue
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON AB 247 (PROPOSITION 2) (CHAPTER 81, STATUTES OF 2024)
Senate: Ayes 34 Noes 3
Assembly: Ayes 72 Noes 1

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
California Has Many Public Schools
and Community Colleges. Currently,
there are about 10,000 public
schools statewide (including about
1,300 charter schools). These schools
serve elementary through high school
students. Local school districts govern
most of these public schools. California
also has 115 local community colleges
that ofer associate degrees and other
programs for adults. Local community
college districts govern these colleges.

School and community college districts
usually build new facilities when they
are growing in enrollment and need
additional space. They renovate existing
facilities when those facilities are old or
unsafe.
14 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 34 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 992 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
2 2

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
State and Districts Usually Split
Education Facility Costs. For public
school districts, the state usually
pays 50 percent of the cost of new
construction projects and 60 percent of
the cost of renovation projects. School
districts are expected to pay remaining
project costs using local funds. The
state also often shares the cost of new
construction and renovation projects
with community college districts. Though
the share of costs varies among projects,
the state commonly pays about half
of the cost, with community college
districts paying the rest using local
funds.

State Mainly Uses Bonds to Pay Its
Share of Costs. Bonds are a way that the
state borrows money and then repays
the money plus interest over time. For
more information about bonds, see
“Overview of State Bond Debt” later in
this guide. Over the past 20 years, the
bulk of state facility funding for schools
and community colleges has
come from voter-approved
bonds (a total of $31.8 billion).

Recently, the state provided
an additional $4.6 billion in
other funding for school and
community college facilities.

Almost all of this funding has
already been awarded for
specifc projects.

Districts Usually Pay Their
Share of Costs Using Local
Bonds. School and community
college districts tend to pay

CONTINUED
their share of project costs using local
bonds. Districts must get at least
55 percent of their voters to approve the
sale of local bonds. State law limits the
total amount of local bonds that school
and community college districts may
issue. These limits are based on the
total assessed property value within the
district. School districts that are unable
to raise at least $5 million under these
limits may apply for additional state
funding. Over the past 20 years, voters
approved $181 billion in local bonds for
public school and community college
facility projects.

PROPOSAL
New Bond for Public School and
Community College Facilities.

Proposition 2 allows the state to sell
a $10 billion bond for public school
and community college facilities. As
Figure 1 shows, the $8.5 billion for
public schools (or 85 percent of the total
For the full text of Proposition 2, see page 70. Analysis | 15 Figure 1
Uses of Proposed Bond Funds
(In Billions)
Public School Facilities
Renovation of existing buildings
New construction (including buying land)
Facilities for career technical education programs
Charter schools
Community College Facilities
$8.5
$4.0

3.3 0.6

0.6 $1.5
Total $10.0

Page 35 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 993 of 1052 ends

2 PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 2 COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
bond amount) is split among four types
of facility projects. For new construction
and renovation projects, school districts
would apply for and be awarded funding
mainly on a frst-come, frst-served
basis. The state would award the
career technical education and charter
school funds through a competitive
application process. A small portion
of new construction and renovation
funds must be set aside for small school
districts. Unlike for public schools, the
$1.5 billion for community colleges (or
15 percent of the total bond amount)
is not split in a prescribed way among
specifc types of projects. Community
college bond funds may be used for any
mix of new buildings, renovations, land
purchases, and equipment. Community
colleges would prepare a plan listing
their statewide project priorities. The
Governor and the Legislature would
select specifc projects to fund.

Proposition 2 requires districts to
complete certain tasks to help ensure
bond funds are spent as intended.

Some Renovation Funding Available
for Certain Types of School Projects.

Proposition 2 allows up to $115 million in
renovation funds to be used for reducing
lead levels in water at public school
sites. Proposition 2 also allows school
districts to receive extra renovation
funding to build a new classroom or
renovate an existing classroom that would
be used for transitional kindergarten.
(Beginning with the 2025–26 school
year, all four-year olds will be eligible for

CONTINUED
a year of transitional kindergarten before
entering kindergarten.) In certain cases,
school districts also could receive extra
renovation funding to expand or build
a new gymnasium, multipurpose room,
library, or school kitchen.

Increases State Share of Costs for Certain
School Districts. For some school districts,
Proposition 2 increases the state’s share
of new construction project costs from
50 percent to as much as 55 percent.

Proposition 2 also increases the state’s
share of renovation project costs from
60 percent to as much as 65 percent
for these school districts. In general, the
state would pay a higher share of project
costs for school districts that have lower
assessed property values and have a
higher share of their students who are low
income, English learners, or foster youth.

Allows More School Districts to Apply for
Additional State Funding. Proposition 2
allows school districts that are unable to
raise at least $15 million from local bonds
(up from $5 million) to apply for additional
state funding. This amount would increase
by infation in future years.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Increased State Costs of About
$500 Million Each Year for 35 Years
to Repay the Bond. The estimated
cost to repay the bond would be about
$500 million each year (annually) over
a 35-year period. Payments would be
made from the state General Fund. (The
General Fund is the account the state uses
to pay for most public services, including
16 | Analysis

Page 36 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 994 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
2 2

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
education, health care, and prisons.) This
would be less than one-half of 1 percent
of the state’s total General Fund budget.

Since the state has to pay interest on the
money it borrows, the total cost of the
bond would be about 10 percent more
(after adjusting for infation) than if the
state paid up front with money it already
has.

Unclear Efect on Local Costs Statewide.

The availability of state bond funds could
afect some districts’ local costs. For
example, some districts could respond
by seeking new local bonds to help them
meet project matching requirements.

These districts would see an increase
in their local costs. In contrast, other

CONTINUED
districts could respond by borrowing less
because the state funds could pay costs
districts otherwise would have covered.

These districts would see a decrease in
their local costs. Overall, the efect on
local costs statewide is unclear.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.

For the full text of Proposition 2, see page 70. Analysis | 17

Page 37 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 995 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 2 COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
2 ★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 2 ★
VOTE YES ON PROP. 2 TO HELP MORE CALIFORNIA

STUDENTS LEARN IN SAFE, CLEAN, UPGRADED
SCHOOLS!
Many public schools and community colleges throughout
California are outdated and need repairs and upgrades to meet basic health and safety standards, prepare students for college and 21st Century careers, and retain and attract quality teachers. Prop. 2 will meet those needs and is guided by strict taxpayer accountability protections so funds are spent as promised with local control.

REPAIRING AND UPGRADING CALIFORNIA’S PUBLIC

SCHOOLS
Many schools in California are old, deteriorating, unsafe and cannot support the basic needs of our children.

Prop. 2 provides funding for urgent repairs to leaky roofs; deteriorating gas, electrical, and sewer lines; plumbing and restrooms; providing clean drinking water; removing hazardous mold, asbestos, and lead paint from our schools; and protecting students from extreme heat.

MAKING SCHOOLS SAFER
Too many of our local schools lack adequate safety and
security protections. Prop. 2 will make students safer by funding door locks, emergency communications and security systems, fre alarms, smoke detectors, and more.

PREPARING STUDENTS FOR 21st CENTURY CAREERS
Prop. 2 will upgrade local schools and community colleges including science, engineering, career technical, and
vocational education classrooms; labs; and learning
technology. It will help more students get job training, technical knowledge, and specialized skills to compete for good-paying jobs in the competitive economy.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AN AFFORDABLE COLLEGE

EDUCATION
Prop. 2 will increase access to quality, afordable higher education for all Californians—allowing more students
to start their college education, earn college credits, and transfer to a four-year university without crushing debt.

HELPING RETURNING VETERANS
Prop. 2 helps local community colleges upgrade facilities to expand veteran services, job training, and support for the tens of thousands of California’s returning veterans who rely on their local community college for job training and to complete their education and enter the civilian workforce.

RESTORING SCHOOLS AFFECTED BY WILDFIRES,

EARTHQUAKES, AND OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS
Prop. 2 provides immediate assistance to schools that are damaged or destroyed by wildfres, foods, earthquakes,
and other natural disasters so they can quickly get up
and running.

PROTECTING LOCAL CONTROL OVER EVERY PROJECT
Prop. 2 protects local control by requiring that its funding only be used for projects approved by local school and
community college districts, with local community input.

All of the money will be controlled and spent locally, where taxpayers have a voice in deciding how these funds are
best used to improve their neighborhood schools, without increasing local property taxes.

FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WITH TOUGH TAXPAYER

ACCOUNTABILITY
Prop. 2 requires public disclosure of every dollar,
tough independent fnancial audits, and strict limits on administrative and bureaucratic costs. These protections ensure that funding is spent directly on schools and used efciently and as promised.

Our schools are in desperate need of upgrades and repairs to ensure our students are safe and ready to learn. Prop. 2 will help our students succeed.

PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON PROP. 2.

David Goldberg, President
California Teachers Association
Sheri Coburn, Executive Director
California School Nurses Organization
Larry Galizio, Chief Executive Ofcer
Community College League of California
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 2 ★
PROPOSITION 2 WILL INCREASE DEBT AND RESULT IN

HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES
California already owes big banks and billionaire investors more than $78 billion. Prop. 2 adds another $10 billion—$18 billion when repaid with interest—for school and community college districts. This is on top of the approximately 40% of the total state budget guaranteed to go to public education from Proposition 98.

Under the funding formula used in Prop. 2, school districts must provide a “local match” of funds to receive money from the bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills.

PROP. 2 IGNORES DECLINING ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOLS

AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES
It’s reckless to borrow billions more to pay for more school buildings when district enrollment is declining. According to the state Department of Finance, “California experienced the 6th consecutive decrease in total Public K–12
Enrollment in the 2022–23 school year,” and over the next ten years, if current trends hold, a further decline of 661,500 by 2032–33.

Prop. 2 borrows $1.5 billion for California Community
College facilities, but enrollment in the state’s community colleges has declined since 2019. The Public Policy Institute of California projects that community college enrollment “will not recover to pre-pandemic levels. ”
While the promises made by proponents cannot be
guaranteed, Prop. 2 does guarantee higher taxes for over- burdened Californians.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 2.

Assemblyman Bill Essayli
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
18 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 38 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 996 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
2 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 2 ★ 2
NO ON PROPOSITION 2: Tell politicians to prioritize
education funding over free healthcare for illegal immigrants in our state budget, rather than further burdening taxpayers to pay of Sacramento’s ballooning bond debt.

Proposition 2 is yet another attempt to circumvent
California’s fnancial problems by asking taxpayers to
approve a $10 billion bond for education fnancing that
should have been included in this year’s $288 billion
budget package.

A budget is a refection of priorities, and our State
Legislature chose to prioritize over $5 billion for universal illegal immigrant healthcare rather than providing funds to support and repair our school infrastructure. Billions in new bond debt is not the answer.

Prop. 2 Saddles Future Generations with Debt that Our Kids Will Be Paying Of for Decades
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association points out that bonds are borrowed money that must be paid back, plus
interest, even if that means cutting vital programs to do it.

Governor Newsom recently declared a budget emergency
because California spends more than it takes in. Children in school today will be drowning in new debt for decades if Prop. 2 passes.

Politicians want to borrow $10 billion from Wall Street and make Californians pay it back with interest, forcing taxpayers to pay up to $10 billion for debt service payments.

California Is Out of Money, Californians Are Over-taxed, Prop. 2 Will Make Things Worse
California, with rampant infation and the highest gas and graduated income taxes in the nation, already has over
$109 billion of outstanding and unissued bonds alongside almost $200 billion of unfunded pension liabilities and retiree medical benefts—over a quarter trillion dollars.

Californians will have to shoulder a greater increase
in their tax burden paying of our bonds and related
interest payments. Our bond debt alone is already $2,460 per person.

Sacramento politicians overspend, issue bonds, and punish us with tax hikes on our cars, gasoline, and income. And those tax dollars rarely go where politicians say they will— our roads crumble while billions go to High-Speed Rail.

Prop. 2 Is the Latest in a Long List of Broken Promises In 2012, California voters approved Proposition 30’s
“temporary” increases to income and sales taxes. Then,
Proposition 55 in 2016 extended many of those “temporary” taxes to 2028. Both times, teachers’ unions promised
billions in funding for our schools.

Money pits in the vast education bureaucracy will suck up most Prop. 2 funds without one cent going toward direct instruction in school classrooms. Instead, this money will be spent on wasteful construction projects benefting
special interests.

California’s schools are consistently ranked near the lowest in the country. Rather than throwing nearly $20 billion into school construction projects, our state needs a well thought out, long-term solution to achieve a high standard of excellence in reading, writing, and math. Prop. 2 does nothing to improve classroom instruction or help our children succeed.

Voters rejected Proposition 13, a $15 billion school bond, in 2020 for exactly these reasons.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 2.

Assemblyman Bill Essayli
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 2 ★
Prop. 2 ensures that California students have the opportunity to learn in safe, updated schools while protecting taxpayers.

PROP. 2 IS NOT A TAX INCREASE
Prop. 2 will fund local upgrades and repairs to schools and community colleges without raising state or local taxes, despite what critics say. Some of the voices against Prop. 2 are ignorant about state bond fnancing and are making
untrue claims because they simply want the state to cut funding for public education.

WE CAN’T WAIT ANY LONGER
Too many California students attend schools with leaky roofs, unsafe drinking water, mold, asbestos, lead paint, and lead pipes. There is a massive backlog of local school repairs but no state funding available for them. Prop. 2 provides the funding so our schools get the upgrades they desperately need, ensuring students have safe, healthy schools to
support learning.

TOUGH ACCOUNTABILITY AND TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS
Prop. 2 puts local voters in control of how school bond monies are spent. It requires public disclosure of all state and local spending, annual audits, and tough accounting standards. Additionally, it protects taxpayers from higher local property taxes by providing state matching funds to local communities so they do not need to raise even more money to fund the full cost of school repairs and upgrades.

Prop. 2 is a bipartisan measure that will help more students get a quality education, increase access to an afordable college education, and improve job training opportunities for veterans and students.

Vote YES on Prop. 2.

Susan Dixon, State President
California Retired Teachers Association
Diana Limon, Director
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
Union 11
Sheri Coburn, Executive Director
California School Nurses Organization
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 19

Page 39 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 997 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.
3 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 3 The text of this measure can be found on page 75 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Amends California Constitution SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S to recognize fundamental right to ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL marry, regardless of sex or race. GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Removes language in California • No change in revenues or costs for Constitution stating that marriage is state and local governments. only between a man and a woman.

FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 5 (PROPOSITION 3) (CHAPTER 125, STATUTES OF 2023)
Senate: Ayes 31 Noes 0
Assembly: Ayes 67 Noes 0
20 | Title and Summary

Page 40 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 998 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
3 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
The federal courts have said that same-
sex couples can marry, but outdated
language in the California Constitution
still says that marriage can only be
between a man and a woman.

PROPOSAL
Proposition 3 updates the Constitution
to match what the federal courts have
said about who can marry.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 3 would not change who
is allowed to marry in California. This
means there would be no change in
revenues or costs to state and local
governments.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
3 For the full text of Proposition 3, see page 75. Analysis | 21

Page 41 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 999 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.
3 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 3 ★
3 VOTE YES on Proposition 3—Protect Your Freedom to
Marry!
Proposition 3 protects every Californian’s right to marry— regardless of gender or race.

Proposition 3 would update our state constitution to
align with existing law that allows marriage for same-sex couples, refecting current court decisions and our values as Californians.

Proposition 3 is supported by a broad and bipartisan
coalition of civic and faith leaders as well as civil rights leaders.

Why we need Proposition 3:

Although marriage equality for same-sex couples
has been the law of the land in the United States for
years, California’s Constitution still says that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. Recent threats against fundamental rights have made it clear California must be proactive in protecting the freedom to marry regardless of gender or race.

Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from
the California Constitution that states marriage is only between a man and a woman and replaces it with
a provision that establishes the right to marry as a
fundamental right, enshrining protections for same-sex
and interracial couples.

California has always been a leader in protecting civil rights and individual freedom. Proposition 3 continues
that legacy.

The proposition respects the freedom of religion in
California. It would not change the existing rights of
clergy and religious denominations to refuse to perform a marriage.

Supporters of Proposition 3 urge you to vote YES:
“Proposition 3 protects the right of every Californian, regardless of gender or race, to marry the person they
love. ”—Equality California
“As a faith leader, I support Proposition 3 because
it protects the right to marry while respecting faith
communities’ First Amendment rights. ”—The Rev. Jef R.

Johnson, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America’s Sierra Pacifc Synod
“This ballot measure comes at a pivotal moment when
the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear its willingness
to revoke hard-won rights, endangering the freedoms of
millions of Californians. ”—American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
“Although marriage equality for same-sex couples has
been the law of the land in the United States for years, California’s Constitution still says that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. Let’s fx it by voting YES on
Proposition 3. Honoring the fundamental rights of all
people and fghting discrimination wherever it exists
is a California value. Prop. 3 helps further California’s commitment to protecting civil rights for all its
residents. ”—Dolores Huerta, President, Dolores Huerta
Foundation
YES on Proposition 3 means FREEDOM and EQUAL
RIGHTS for all.

Learn more at: yesonprop3CA.com
Assemblymember Evan Low
Tony Hoang, Executive Director
Equality California
Jodi Hicks, CEO
Planned Parenthood Afliates of California
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 3 ★
The authors of Proposition 3 claim it’s about the “freedom to marry,” but that’s not true. This extreme amendment
goes TOO FAR and puts vulnerable people at risk. It’s not just about updating our state laws. This measure takes
away essential safeguards that protect marriage and
children.

Supporters say we need Prop. 3 due to “discrimination. ” But same-sex marriage has been legal since 2015, and
no one is trying to change that: not the Supreme Court
nor anyone else. There is simply NO REASON to pass this dangerous measure.

Proposition 3 removes ALL protections on marriage,
including limits on children, close relatives, and three or more people marrying each other. All civilized societies prohibit these things because they HURT PEOPLE. That’s
why the unclear wording of Prop. 3 will cause huge
problems.

Backers claim to care about civil rights and fairness.

However, Proposition 3 puts what adults want ahead
of what children need. By saying mothers and fathers
aren’t necessary, it IGNORES years of studies and basic common sense afrming that kids do best when raised by
both parents in a stable home.

California can support equal rights without this risky and unnecessary measure. Proposition 3 THREATENS our
shared values of healthy families, healthy children, and a healthy society. It’s not about equality; it’s about radically changing marriage and family.

Let’s protect our kids, families, and communities. Vote NO on Proposition 3!
Learn more at www.Proposition3.net or
www.CaliforniaFamily.org.

Jonathan Keller, President
California Family Council
Rev. Tanner DiBella, Founder
The American Council of Evangelicals
22 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 42 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1000 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONCONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
3 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 3 ★
Californians should vote NO on Proposition 3, the so-
called “Freedom to Marry” initiative. Supporters say
it updates our constitution to match current laws,
but it actually changes the defnition of marriage in
DANGEROUS and unexpected ways.

The big problem with Proposition 3 is that it overrides all laws on marriage. A “fundamental right” to marry means
it would remove protections against child marriages,
incest, and polygamy. Is this what we want for California? The unclear wording of Prop. 3 would lead to SERIOUS
PROBLEMS that harm our society.

You may hear we need this measure to protect against
possible Supreme Court decisions. But same-sex
marriage has been legal across the country since 2015.

Proposition 3 is fxing a problem that doesn’t exist and is instead causing HARM.

Some supporters say “extremist politicians” could
threaten marriage rights. But it is the backers of
Proposition 3 who are EXTREME by wanting to remove all
marriage guidelines. Sadly, all the talk about “equality” hides the RADICAL changes behind this proposal.

Current laws and court decisions already protect the right to marry, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity. These laws also protect children, prevent exploitation, and keep marriage as a union between two
consenting adults. But Proposition 3 would REMOVE these defenses.

Instead of protecting civil rights in California, this measure risks the civil rights of children. It even opens the door to polygamy—marriage between more than two people. This
would only exploit vulnerable women and children. Is this the kind of “EQUALITY” we want in our state?
By changing the defnition of marriage, this measure also suggests that children don’t need both a mom and a dad.

This goes against years of research showing that kids do best when raised by their mother and father in a stable, married home.

Children without a mother or father are more likely to have emotional issues, take part in risky behaviors, struggle in school, and face fnancial problems.

Proposition 3 INCREASES RISKS to kids’ emotions,
physical health, and education.

California is a leader in diversity and acceptance. But TRUE PROGRESS doesn’t mean getting rid of all rules and protections. We should update our laws carefully while
keeping necessary safeguards.

Instead of rushing to redefne marriage in ways that
EXCLUDE a child’s mother or father, we should insist that all adults conform to the needs of children. Proposition 3 FAILS this test badly.

Don’t be tricked by talk of “love” and “acceptance. ”
Proposition 3 is a RECKLESS and unneeded measure that
would hurt our state. It removes important protections for marriage while pretending to expand rights.

Californians deserve better than this poorly written and HARMFUL proposition. We can protect marriage and civil
rights without allowing child brides, incest, and polygamy.

Vote NO on Proposition 3 to keep common-sense marriage
rules and protect our children, families, and society.

For more information, visit www.Proposition3.net or
www.CaliforniaFamily.org.

Jonathan Keller, President
California Family Council
Tanner DiBella, President
The American Council for Evangelicals
3 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 3 ★
Proposition 3’s opponents are wrong. Here are the facts:

Proposition 3 PROTECTS the right of Californians to marry, regardless of gender or race.

Proposition 3 DOES NOT change California’s laws
regarding age requirements for marriage or the number of people in a marriage.

Aaron Tang, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Davis, notes, “Proposition 3 removes outdated language in the California Constitution prohibiting
marriage between same-sex couples. ”
For decades, Proposition 3’s opponents have sought to
deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. They want to
keep discriminatory language in the state constitution.

That is why they oppose Proposition 3.

FAITH LEADERS & CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS SUPPORT YES
ON 3
The vast majority of Californians believe that every
Californian, regardless of gender or race, should have
the right to marry the person they love. That’s why
Proposition 3 is supported by a broad and bipartisan
coalition of faith leaders, civil rights advocates, and family- centered organizations.

California has always been a leader in protecting civil rights and individual freedom. Proposition 3 continues
that legacy.

Learn more at yesonprop3CA.com.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 3—PROTECT YOUR

FREEDOM TO MARRY
Senator Scott Wiener
Mia Kirby, Senior Regional Organizing Lead
Human Rights Campaign
Maria Roman, Vice President
TransLatin@ Coalition
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 23

Page 43 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1001 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE

PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
4 LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 4 The text of this measure can be found on page 75 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Authorizes $10 billion in state general SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE obligation bonds for various projects to reduce OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCALclimate risks and impacts: $3.8 billion for safe IMPACT: drinking water and water resilience; $1.95
billion for wildfire prevention and extreme heat • Increased state costs of about $400 million mitigation; $1.9 billion for protection of natural annually for 40 years to repay the bond. lands, parks, and wildlife; $1.2 billion for
protection of coastal lands, bays, and oceans;
$850 million for clean energy; and $300 million
for agriculture.
• Prioritizes projects benefitting disadvantaged
communities.
• Requires annual audits.
• Appropriates money from General Fund to
repay bonds.

State Bond Cost Estimate
Amount borrowed $10 billion
Average repayment cost $400 million
per year over
40 years
Source of repayment General tax
revenue
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SB 867 (PROPOSITION 4) (CHAPTER 83, STATUTES OF 2024)
Senate: Ayes 33 Noes 6
Assembly: Ayes 66 Noes 6

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
State Pays for Natural Resources and Climate
Activities. The state pays for many activities
aimed at conserving natural resources, as well
as responding to the causes and efects of
climate change (“natural resources and climate
activities”). These activities focus on increasing
the amount of water available for use, conserving
land to beneft fsh and wildlife, increasing
recreational opportunities at state and local
parks, and other purposes. In some cases, state
government agencies perform natural resources
and climate activities. In other cases, the state
provides grants and loans to local governments,
not-for-proft organizations, and businesses to
support similar activities.

State Pays for Natural Resources and Climate
Activities in Various Ways. Sometimes the state
pays up front for natural resources and climate
activities with money it already has. In other
cases, the state pays for these activities by using
bonds. Bonds are a way that the state borrows
money and then repays the money plus interest
over time. (For more information about bonds,
please see “Overview of State Bond Debt” later in
this guide.)
Over the past decade, the state has spent an
average of about $13 billion each year (annually)
on natural resources and climate activities. About
15 percent of this amount has been from bonds.

The state still has a few billion dollars remaining
from prior natural resources and climate bonds
that have not yet been committed for specifc
activities.

Local and Federal Governments Also Pay
for Similar Activities. In addition to the state
funding, other entities also pay for natural
resources and climate activities. For example,
24 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 44 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1002 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE

PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. 4

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
in some areas, local governments pay for water
and energy infrastructure as part of their roles
as local utilities. Local governments such as
cities and counties also pay for local parks. The
federal government also pays for various natural
resources and climate activities. For example, the
federal government provides money to improve
local drinking water systems and to build energy
infrastructure.

PROPOSAL
New Bond for Natural Resources and Climate
Activities. Proposition 4 allows the state to sell a

CONTINUED
$10 billion bond for natural resources and climate
activities. Much of the bond money would be used
for loans and grants to local governments, Native
American tribes, not-for-proft organizations, and
businesses. Some bond money also would be
available for state agencies to spend on state-run
activities.

Funding Would Pay for a Variety of Activities.

As shown in Figure 1, Proposition 4 pays for
activities within eight broad categories, each with
diferent goals. Some of the main activities in each
category are summarized below:
4 For the full text of Proposition 4, see page 75. Analysis | 25 Figure 1
Key Goals of Proposition 4 Bond Funds
(In Millions)
Category
Drought, Flood, and Water
Supply
Forest Health and Wildfire
Prevention
Sea-Level Rise and
Coastal Areas
Land Conservation and
Habitat Restoration
Energy Infrastructure
Parks
Extreme Heat
Farms and Agriculture
Total
Key Goals
Increase the amount and quality of water
available for people to use and reduce
the risk of flooding.

Improve the health of forests and protect
communities from wildf ires.

Reduce the risks from sea-level rise,
restore coastal areas, and protect fish.

Protect and restore natural areas.

Support the state's shift to more renewable
sources of energy, such as offshore wind.

Expand, renovate, and repair local and
state parks.

Reduce the effects of extreme heat on
communities.

Help farms respond to the effects of
climate change and become more
sustainable.

Amount
$3,800
1,500
1,200
1,200
850
700
450
300
$10,000

Page 45 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1003 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE 4 PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
4 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
• Drought, Flood, and Water Supply
($3.8 Billion). Roughly half of this money would
be for activities to increase the amount and
quality of water available for people to use
($1.9 billion). This would include storing water
so it can be used during future droughts, as well
as cleaning polluted water to make it safe to
drink. Money would also be used to help reduce
the risk of floods, such as by repairing dams
and capturing and reusing stormwater ($1.1
billion). The rest of the money would be used
for various activities, such as restoring rivers
and lakes.
• Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention
($1.5 Billion). All of this money would support
activities to improve the health of forests and
reduce the risk of severe and destructive
wildfires. This would include thinning trees
in forests that are overgrown and clearing
vegetation near where people live. Money
would also be used for other activities, such
as helping homeowners make their properties
more resistant to wildfire damage.
• Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Areas ($1.2 Billion).

Most of this money would pay for activities to
restore coastal areas and protect them from the
effects of rising sea levels ($890 million). This
could include restoring wetlands so they can
serve as buffers to rising sea levels. The rest
of this money would be used to improve ocean
habitats and protect fish and other marine
wildlife ($310 million).
• Land Conservation and Habitat Restoration
($1.2 Billion). This money would be used to
protect and restore land for the benefit of fish
and wildlife. For example, it could support
purchasing land to set aside so that it is not
developed.
• Energy Infrastructure ($850 Million). More
than half of this money would support the
development of wind turbines off the California
coast ($475 million). Most of the remaining
money would pay for building infrastructure

CONTINUED
such as transmission lines to carry electricity
long distances ($325 million). The rest of the
money would pay for projects to build large
batteries that store electricity for when it is
needed ($50 million).
• Parks ($700 Million). The bulk of this money
would support various activities that expand
recreational opportunities at parks or reduce
the impacts of climate change on parks
($300 million). These activities could include
adding new trails and parking areas. Some
of this money would provide grants to local
communities to build new parks or renovate
existing parks ($200 million). The rest of this
money would be used to repair state parks and
provide nature education ($200 million).
• Extreme Heat ($450 Million). Much of this
money would pay for activities focused on
protecting communities from extreme heat
($200 million). These activities could include
adding trees and greenspaces. Money would
also support places for people to go during
heatwaves or disasters ($100 million). The rest
of the money would provide grants for local
communities to conduct activities that provide
environmental benefits, such as reducing air
pollution ($150 million).
• Farms and Agriculture ($300 Million). Much
of this money would be used for activities that
encourage farmers to improve soil health,
reduce air pollution, and use less water
($105 million). This money would also support
community gardens and farmers’ markets,
such as by purchasing shade canopies
($60 million). The rest of this money would
support a range of other activities, such as
purchasing vans to transport farmworkers and
conserving farmland.

Establishes Other Requirements for the Use of
Funds. Proposition 4 requires the bond money
to be used in certain ways. For example, at least
40 percent of bond money must be used for
activities that directly beneft communities that
26 | Analysis

Page 46 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1004 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE

PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. 4

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
have lower incomes or are more vulnerable to the
impacts of climate change. Proposition 4 also
requires regular public reporting of how the bond
money is spent.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Increased State Costs of About $400 Million
Annually for 40 Years to Repay the Bond. The
estimated cost to repay the bond would be about
$400 million annually over a 40-year period.

Payments would be made from the state General
Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state
uses to pay for most public services, including
education, health care, and prisons.) This would
be less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s
total General Fund budget. Since the state has
to pay interest on the money it borrows, the total
cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more
(after adjusting for infation) than if the state paid
up front with money it already has.

Likely Reduced Local Costs for Natural Resources
and Climate Activities. The availability of state
bond funds could have various fscal efects on
local governments. In some cases, the additional
state funding could replace local government
money that would otherwise be needed to pay for
a project. For example, this could include using
bond funds to help support an essential water
treatment facility the local government otherwise
would have needed to fund by itself. In other

CONTINUED
cases, however, the availability of state funds
could encourage local governments to spend
more money to build larger projects than they
otherwise would. For example, this could include
adding additional amenities to a local park. On
net, Proposition 4 likely would result in savings to
local governments. The amount of these savings
is uncertain but could average tens of millions of
dollars annually over the next few decades.

Potential State and Local Savings if Funding
Prevents Disasters. To the extent the bond funds
result in completing activities that reduce the
risk or amount of damage from disasters, it could
reduce state and local costs for responding to
and recovering from those events. For example,
improving a levee could reduce the amount of
fooding that occurs. Additionally, thinning trees in
a forest could reduce the severity of wildfres. The
amount of such potential savings is uncertain.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
4 For the full text of Proposition 4, see page 75. Analysis | 27

Page 47 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1005 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE 4 PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4 ★
4 YES on 4: TO CLEAN AND PROTECT OUR DRINKING

WATER, PREVENT WILDFIRES
Prop. 4 makes urgent, commonsense investments to protect our communities, health, economy, and natural resources by:
• Cleaning up and protecting water supplies • Preventing devastating wildfres • Protecting forests, beaches, fresh water sources, and wildlife habitat
Voting Yes on 4 is urgently needed. California faces
increasing threats from wildfres, water pollution, and
extreme heat. Investments today can prevent future costs and damage from a changing climate and more frequent
natural disasters.

PROVIDING CLEAN, SAFE DRINKING WATER
Prop. 4 will clean up and protect California’s drinking water supplies in all regions of California—remove toxic pollutants from our drinking water, addressing infrastructure risks like weakened dams and levees, and increasing supplies.

Today, nearly 1 million Californians lack access to drinking water that meets safety and reliability standards, according to the State Water Board. Yes on 4 helps ensure we all have safe water to drink.

PREVENTING DEVASTATING WILDFIRES AND SMOKE
Recent California wildfres have burned 2 million acres, released toxic smoke into our air, and polluted drinking water supplies. Fire damage and smoke have harmed
quality of life and health, including children’s lungs, in every corner of California. Prop. 4 invests in projects to prevent wildfres, reduce their intensity when they do occur, and improve disaster response.
“Giving frefghters the tools to prevent wildfres is the best, most cost efective way to prevent the human and
fnancial costs of these disasters. Prop. 4 makes the
right investments to save lives and billions in response and recovery costs. ”—Tim Edwards, President, CALFIRE
Firefghters

PROTECTING FORESTS, BEACHES, RIVERS, STREAMS,

AND WILDLIFE
Our beaches, forests, and mountains make California
special, and we have a responsibility to protect them for our children and future generations. Protecting natural areas and wildlife is more urgent today than ever before, as we lose wildlife habitat, farm and ranchland, and even beaches wash away. Prop. 4 protects these natural areas from wildfre, pollution, and other threats from a changing climate.

PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH
By removing pollution from the air and toxins from our
water, Prop. 4 protects the health of vulnerable seniors and children.

STRONG FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY &

TRANSPARENCY
California is already paying the price for failing to adequately prepare for drought and a changing climate. This measure helps shift from disaster response to prevention.

Our state and communities will save billions more by
avoiding and reducing damage from wildfres, droughts, and foods.

Prop. 4 contains strict fscal accountability and
transparency:
• Annual independent audits • Full public disclosure of all future funding
Join California frefghters (CalFire Local 2881), the National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, Clean Water Action, and water agencies including San Diego Co Water Authority: YES on 4.

Jennifer Clary, State Director
Clean Water Action
Tim Edwards, President
CALFIRE Firefghters
Beth Pratt, California Regional Executive Director
National Wildlife Federation
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 4 ★
Clean drinking water and preventing destructive wildfres are necessities, not luxuries. These should be addressed within our state budget, not by demanding $10 billion more from the taxpayers in the form of a bond that will cost nearly double to repay—$19.3 billion.

The challenges we face with wildfres and water supply are the result of decades of neglect and mismanagement of our resources. Empowering tribal leaders for forest management and investing in water infrastructure could have prevented these crises. These aren’t random occurrences, but
repercussions of misguided policies.

Despite politicians’ frequent promises for accountability, since 2000 California voters have approved over $30 billion in natural resources bonds—with little to show. After years of refusing to prioritize spending on forest management, we are sufering the aftermath of major wildfres that could have been prevented, or at least minimized. After years of refusing to invest in water storage, we are facing water supply instability.

Instead of burdening taxpayers with a bond that
overpromises, we should tackle these issues in the budget.

Real change stems from commitment, not quick fxes. This isn’t just policy, it’s our future. Let’s choose pragmatism over procrastination.

Sacramento politicians should not demand more money
from the taxpayers or pressure voters to pass an unrealistic bond package that lacks any lasting change to state policy.

Vote NO on Proposition 4.

Vote NO on deferring our environmental responsibility at double the cost. Let’s invest in a greener tomorrow today.

Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones
Assemblyman Jim Patterson
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
28 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 48 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1006 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE

PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL
LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. 4
★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 4 ★
TOO MUCH DEBT, TOO LITTLE BENEFIT: THE PROBLEM
WITH PROPOSITION 4
Bonds are the most expensive way for the government
to pay for things. Proposition 4 would add a whopping
$10 billion of debt to the taxpayers—PLUS an estimated
$9.3 billion in interest—to pay for climate-related programs.

This funding would also cover administrative costs and
salaries for grant recipients. But remember, this is borrowed money.

At the start of the year, California already had over
$78 billion of bond debt. Proposition 1 in March added
another $6.38 billion. Now there’s a proposal to add an additional $10 billion for ambiguous climate programs.

Guess who’s going to foot the bill? That’s right—we
taxpayers. Our tax dollars will be diverted from essential services to cover interest payments and principal repayment of the bond.

Bonds are borrowed money that must be paid back, PLUS
INTEREST, no matter what the state must cut to do it.

Governor Newsom already declared a budget emergency
because the state spends more than it takes in. How
many programs will have to be cut in the future to pay for Proposition 4? According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Ofce, we had a $62 billion defcit this year. What will happen when we have both a defcit AND the obligation to repay this enormous bond debt?
Two years ago, California had a nearly $100 billion
SURPLUS. If these climate projects had been prioritized then, we could have covered the entire cost of this bond with just 10 percent of that surplus. Now, due to the
government’s inability to manage its spending, they are asking voters for more of their hard-earned money.

AS A VOTER, YOUR TAX DOLLARS SHOULD FUND YOUR
HIGHEST PRIORITIES, NOT PET PROJECTS.

Bonds should be reserved for fnancing essential projects that will build infrastructure lasting beyond the 30-year payof period. However, many elements of Proposition 4 fail to meet that standard, resulting in $10 billion of spending just being added to the taxpayers’ credit card—with a
lack of accountability or measured metrics for success! Proposition 4 is full of money being funneled to unproven technologies that may sound promising on paper but have no concrete evidence of success. By committing funds to speculative projects, Proposition 4 overlooks long-term water storage and critical wildfre fuel management
programs in favor of short-term, unproven projects.

IT’S RECKLESS TO USE COSTLY BORROWED MONEY TO
PAY FOR UNPROVEN PROGRAMS.

Proposition 4 represents a reckless increase in state
debt with questionable benefts. The government should
prioritize essential services and ensure that any borrowing is reserved for projects that provide lasting, tangible benefts to the state and its residents. Vital programs
should be funded in the budget with the taxes we already pay, not through costly borrowing. What’s in the budget that’s a higher priority than safe drinking water and wildfre prevention? Politicians should answer that question before racking up another $10+ billion in debt that will have to be paid back, WITH INTEREST.

Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones
Assemblyman Jim Patterson
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
4 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 4 ★
YES on 4: ADDRESSES CALIFORNIA’S HIGHEST PRIORITY
DRINKING WATER and FIRE PREVENTION NEEDS
California frefghters, clean water organizations, public health experts, and conservation groups urge YES on 4, to address our state’s most vital needs for a safe water supply, wildfre prevention, and clean air.

The opposition itself admits, clean water and wildfre
prevention are critical priorities.

Prop. 4 makes efcient, sensible investments in proven
solutions: upgrading drinking water treatment to remove contaminants, fxing crumbling dams and levees to prevent foods, creating groundwater storage and recycling plants to boost supply and prepare for drought, and investing in efective wildfre prevention and containment strategies.

YES on 4: SMART, URGENT INVESTMENTS WITH

STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS, PROTECTS

COMMUNITIES AND PREVENTS BILLIONS IN FUTURE
COSTS
Yes on 4 is fscally responsible and fully transparent.

Nearly 1 million Californians lack access to clean drinking water. Yes on 4’s investments strengthen safe water
supplies and food control infrastructure—saving billions in temporary fxes and economic losses.

A UCLA study found 10 years of wildfre smoke have caused 50,000 premature deaths and $400 billion in economic
losses. Wildfre prevention saves six times its cost in
reduced damage, while protecting our health.
“California’s fnancial health is vulnerable to natural
disasters, neglected infrastructure, and a changing climate.

Without raising taxes, Yes on Prop. 4 saves California money while helping state and local governments protect our
communities. ”—Tim Gage, former state Director of Finance.

California communities can’t wait.

YES on 4: CLEAN DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE
PREVENTION, and OUR HEALTH.

Susana De Anda, Executive Director
Community Water Center
Sarah Gibson, Fire Manager
The Nature Conservancy
Christopher Chavez, Deputy Policy Director
Coalition for Clean Air
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 29

Page 49 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1007 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL.
5 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 94 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
5 • Allows local bonds for afordable housing
for low- and middle-income Californians,
or for public infrastructure including roads,
water, and fre protection to be approved
by 55% of voters, rather than current
two-thirds approval requirement.
• Bonds must include specifed
accountability requirements, including
citizens oversight committee and annual
independent fnancial and performance
audits.
• Allows local governments to assess
property taxes above 1% to repay
afordable housing and infrastructure
bonds if approved by 55% of voters instead
of current two-thirds approval requirement.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE

OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL
IMPACT:
• Increased local borrowing to fund
afordable housing, supportive housing,
and public infrastructure. The amount of
increased borrowing would depend on
decisions by local governments and voters.

Borrowed funds would be repaid with
higher property taxes.

FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 1 (PROPOSITION 5) (CHAPTER 173, STATUTES OF 2023)
Senate: Ayes 29 Noes 10
Assembly: Ayes 55 Noes 12
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 10 (PROPOSITION 5) (CHAPTER 134, STATUTES OF 2024)
Senate: Ayes 31 Noes 8
Assembly: Ayes 54 Noes 8

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
Housing Is Expensive in California. A typical
California home currently costs around twice
the national average. Similarly, renters in
California typically pay about 50 percent more
for housing than renters in other states.

Local Programs Help Pay for Housing. Some
programs help low-income Californians aford
housing. For example, governments help pay
for housing reserved for low-income residents.

Other programs provide housing and services
to specifc groups. Examples of such groups
include people with disabilities or those at
risk of chronic homelessness. We refer to
afordable and supportive housing programs
as “housing assistance. ”
Local Governments Also Pay for Public
Infrastructure. Examples of infrastructure
projects paid for by local governments include
roads, hospitals, fre stations, libraries, and
water treatment facilities.

Local Governments Often Use Bonds to Pay
for Housing Assistance Programs and Public
30 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 50 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1008 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 5

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
Infrastructure. Bonds are a way for local
governments to borrow money and then repay
it plus interest over time. Similar to the way
a family pays of a mortgage on their home,
bonds allow governments to spread costs over
a few decades.

Certain Bonds Require Two-Thirds Approval
of Local Voters. For cities, counties, and
special districts, bonds paid for by increased
property taxes typically require two-thirds of
local voters to approve them. These are called
general obligation bonds.

PROPOSAL
Proposition 5 changes the rules in the
California Constitution for approving certain
local government general obligation bonds.

It also requires local governments to monitor
the use of revenues in specifc ways.

Lowers Voter Approval Requirement for
Certain Bonds. Proposition 5 lowers the
voting requirement needed to approve local
general obligation bonds if they would fund
housing assistance or public infrastructure.

Specifcally, Proposition 5 lowers the voter
approval requirement from two-thirds to
55 percent.

Requires Specifc Oversight Activities.

Proposition 5 requires local governments
to take specifc steps to monitor the use of
bond funds supporting housing assistance
and public infrastructure. For example, local
governments would need to conduct annual
independent fnancial and performance
audits. Citizens’ oversight committees
also would be appointed to help supervise
spending.

CONTINUED

FISCAL EFFECTS
Certain Local Bonds More Likely to Pass.

A lower voter approval requirement would
make it easier to pass local general obligation
bonds for housing assistance and public
infrastructure. Recent local election results
suggest that an additional 20 percent to
50 percent of local bond measures would
have passed under Proposition 5’s lower voter
approval requirement. Those measures would
have raised a couple billion dollars over many
years. A lower voter approval requirement
also could mean local governments propose
more measures.

Increased Local Funding for Housing
Assistance and Public Infrastructure. An
increase in the approval of local bonds
could increase funding available for housing
assistance and public infrastructure. The
amount of this increase is not clear. Based
on recent trends, it could be at least a couple
billion dollars over many years. The amount
of the increase would vary across local
governments. If local voters approve more
bonds, local governments also would have
more borrowing costs. These costs would be
paid with higher property taxes. Ultimately,
any future bond approval would depend on
decisions by local governments and voters.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
5 For the full text of Proposition 5, see page 94. Analysis | 31

Page 51 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1009 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND 5 PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 5 ★
5 VOTE YES ON PROP. 5
Prop. 5 gives local voters more control over funding
for afordable housing and vital infrastructure projects including roads, bridges, local fre protection and water systems. Without raising taxes, Prop. 5 shifts local public policy decisions and spending priorities away from state government, giving local voters and taxpayers more tools, more power, and greater autonomy to address those issues in their own communities.

PROP. 5: AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR LOW‑ AND MIDDLE‑

INCOME CALIFORNIANS
We have a massive shortage of afordable housing for low‑ and middle‑income Californians. The high cost of housing consumes too much of our paychecks, and many middle‑
class families are being pushed out of the communities
where they work and where their children go to school.

Prop. 5 gives local communities more tools to make
housing more afordable, including: • Providing frst‑time homebuyers’ programs; • Building new housing, including afordable for‑sale ownership and rental housing, for low‑ and middle‑income Californians, seniors, veterans, and
homeless families; and • Renovating and repairing existing afordable housing.

PROP. 5: LOCAL PROJECTS SUPPORTING NEW HOUSING

AND SAFE COMMUNITIES
In addition to afordable housing, Prop. 5 makes it easier for local voters who choose to invest in safety repairs and improvements to bridges, roads, public transportation,
water systems, and other critical public infrastructure as they see ft. Local voters can also approve bonds for emergency preparedness, including local fre stations and engines, ambulances, and early‑warning systems for natural disasters. Prop. 5 trusts local voters to prioritize what’s most important in their communities.

PROP. 5: LOCAL CONTROL. INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY
Prop. 5 does not raise taxes. It simply gives voters more power to address the unique needs of their communities
without relying on the state, which has not met the
challenges facing most California families.

But with increased control, comes increased accountability, transparency, and oversight to ensure that these programs truly deliver results. To increase protection of local tax dollars, qualifying bond measures have strict accountability requirements including: • A clear list of the specifc types of projects to be funded. • All funding must be spent to beneft the jurisdiction that approves the bonds, ensuring that local taxpayers beneft. • Caps on administrative costs so resources are used for the projects local taxpayers voted for. • Independent performance and fnancial audits of
spending must be posted publicly and reviewed by the State Auditor. • Strict confict of interest checks for local ofcials. • Oversight by an independent citizens committee.

For years, local voters have known what challenges their communities face, and how best to address those issues.

Voting Yes on Prop. 5 empowers local voters to make
decisions about what their communities need, and makes
it easier to solve those local problems, with less reliance on state government which has proven to be too slow
and unable to address the critical needs of our individual communities.

Prop. 5 trusts local voters to know what’s best for their own communities when faced with afordable housing shortages and other infrastructure challenges, and gives them the tools to invest in their own local solutions.

Vote Yes on Prop. 5.

Brian K. Rice, President
California Professional Firefghters
Christopher Carson, President
League of Women Voters of California
Leah Miller, Chairperson
Habitat for Humanity California
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 5 ★
NO ON PROP. 5: MORE GOVERNMENT DEBT AND HIGHER

PROPERTY TAXES
Politicians claim they need Prop. 5 to make it easier to pass bonds, but they don’t tell you bonds are not free. Bonds are debt. A $20 billion bond costs $30 billion to repay—and it’s paid of with higher property taxes.

NO ON PROP. 5: A TRICK TO USE TAXPAYERS AS A CREDIT
CARD
The politicians in Sacramento turned a $100 billion surplus into a $73 billion defcit in just two years. Now, they want to use local taxpayers as a credit card to keep spending.

They want you to pay for afordable housing and other
“infrastructure” projects with higher property taxes.

NO ON PROP. 5: LOOPHOLES THAT GO BEYOND
“INFRASTRUCTURE”
Politicians say Prop. 5 will build “infrastructure,” but the fne print defnes “infrastructure” so broadly that it can include just about anything they want to fund on the backs of local taxpayers.

NO ON PROP. 5: MORE WASTEFUL SPENDING
Politicians say Prop. 5 is needed to build “afordable”
housing, but they don’t tell you their version of afordable housing costs as much as $1 million per unit and comes with expensive state mandates.

NO ON PROP. 5: HIGHER TAXES, HIGHER RENTS, HIGHER
PRICES
Since 1879, California has required a 2/3 majority
approval to approve most bonds. Prop. 5 reduces that
threshold—meaning more debt and higher property taxes
for homeowners, higher rents for renters, higher costs to farmers, and higher prices for everything we buy and use.

Don’t trust the politicians. Vote NO on Prop. 5.

Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Rev. Dwight E. Williams, Chairman
California Senior Alliance
Greg Van Dyke, President
California Consumer Advocates for Afordability and Safety 32 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 52 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1010 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 5
★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 5 ★
NO ON PROP. 5: WRITTEN BY POLITICIANS TO INCREASE

DEBT AND RAISE TAXES
Prop. 5 changes the constitutional requirements that
have existed for 145 years by reducing the voter approval requirements to pass bonds. Prop. 5 makes it easier for cities, counties, and special districts to increase property taxes to pay for our already massive debt levels in California.

Increased debt, combined with skyrocketing interest rates, means HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES ultimately paid for by
every Californian.

NO ON PROP. 5: EVEN MORE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT
California already has more debt than any other state, with more than $500 billion in state and local debt. When this debt is added to the state’s total unfunded liabilities, it totals a staggering $1.6 TRILLION. Prop. 5 puts taxpayers on the hook for even more—saddling future generations with the bill!
NO ON PROP. 5: HIGHER TAXES, HIGHER RENTS, HIGHER
PRICES
Bonds are not free money. Like a loan, mortgage, or credit card debt, bonds have to be paid back—with interest.

Interest charges turn a $20 billion bond into a $30 billion tax after principal and interest—and TAXPAYERS PAY those costs through higher property taxes.

Higher property taxes mean higher house payments for
homeowners, higher rents for renters, higher costs to
farmers, and higher prices for everything we buy since local businesses will have to pass their higher property taxes on to consumers.

NO ON PROP. 5: SHIFTS STATE BURDEN TO LOCAL

TAXPAYERS
The politicians in Sacramento have made a mess with
their fnancial mismanagement and wasteful spending,
turning a $100 billion surplus into a $73 billion defcit with unsustainable spending. Prop. 5 allows politicians to cover up their mess by shifting the costs for state programs to local taxpayers. And Prop. 5 was written to defne “infrastructure” so broadly that it can include just about anything the
politicians and special interests want to fund on the backs of taxpayers.

PROP. 5: BEWARE THE FINE PRINT
The politicians who wrote Prop. 5 even snuck in a provision buried in the fne print that would make it RETROACTIVE— meaning that any bond passed this November would only
need a lower vote total to pass. Normally, when voters
approve a measure on the ballot, it doesn’t go into law until after the election results are certifed. By making Prop. 5 retroactive, they hope to saddle taxpayers with billions in new taxes and debt immediately. That means taxpayers
could see their property taxes skyrocket right away.

NO ON PROP. 5: IT WILL MAKE EVERYTHING MORE

EXPENSIVE
Californians already struggle with the highest cost of living in the nation. We already pay the highest income, sales, and gas taxes in the country, and Prop. 5 will lead to even higher property taxes and higher costs for everyone. Homeowners will be hit with higher taxes, renters with higher rent, and consumers with higher prices on everything from food to gas and utilities to services.

PROP. 5 will make everything more expensive when
Californians can least aford it.

NO on PROP. 5.

Robert Gutierrez, President
California Taxpayers Association
Julian Canete, President
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Kendra Moss, Advisory Member
Women Veterans Alliance
5 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 5 ★
YES ON PROP. 5 DOES NOT RAISE TAXES: Prop. 5 simply
shifts local public policy decisions and spending priorities away from state government, giving local voters and
taxpayers more tools and greater autonomy to address
issues in their own communities. Unlike statewide bond
measures, Prop. 5 requires that projects funded by local taxpayers must beneft local taxpayers, and gives more
power to those communities that choose to use Prop. 5 to solve real problems.

PROP. 5 IS NOT A BOND OR A TAX: Prop. 5 fnally gives local communities the choice to address critical infrastructure needs if supported by a super‑majority of local voters.

Whether it’s making it easier for frst‑time homebuyers, seniors, veterans, and working families to aford housing, or fxing the local roads and bridges that families depend upon for safe travel to and from work and school, Prop. 5 empowers local voters to solve local problems.

PROP. 5 REQUIRES INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY: For
those communities that choose to utilize Prop. 5, strict taxpayer protections will be mandatory, including: • A list of projects to be funded. • Caps on administrative costs and strict confict of interest rules. • Independent audits made public, and a trained local citizens oversight committee.

VOTE YES ON PROP. 5: Voters have always known what
challenges their communities face and how best to
address important issues including housing afordability, water systems, road repair, fre stations, and other critical infrastructure needs. Prop. 5 will empower local voters with the choice and the tools to solve those challenges.

Daniel Parra, President
League of California Cities
John Valencia, President
Middle Class Taxpayers Association
Michelle Gutierrez Vo, President
California Nurses Association
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 33

Page 53 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1011 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS.
6 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 97 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• 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).
• Prohibits the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation
from punishing incarcerated persons
for refusing a work assignment.

Allows incarcerated persons to
voluntarily accept work assignments
in exchange for credit to reduce their
sentences.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S

ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Potential increase or decrease in
state and local criminal justice costs,
depending on how rules around work
for people in state prison and county
jail change. Any efect likely would
not exceed the tens of millions of
dollars annually.
6 FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 8 (PROPOSITION 6) (CHAPTER 133, STATUTES OF 2024)
Senate: Ayes 33 Noes 3
Assembly: Ayes 68 Noes 0

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
“Involuntary Servitude” Banned
Except as a Punishment for Crime. The
California Constitution bans involuntary
servitude except as a punishment
for crime. The Constitution does not
defne involuntary servitude. However,
involuntary servitude commonly refers
to forcing people to work against their
will.

Some People in State Prison and
County Jail Work. People in prison and
jail can be required to work or do other
activities such as taking classes. Work
includes jobs like cooking, cleaning, or
other tasks needed to run prisons and
jails. Roughly one-third of people in
prison work. Many of these workers are
paid less than $1 per hour. Workers can
also earn “time credits” that reduce
the amount of time they serve in prison
or jail. People who refuse to work or do
other activities can face consequences
such as losing the ability to make
regular phone calls.
34 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 54 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1012 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 6

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

PROPOSAL
Bans Involuntary Servitude as a
Punishment for Crime. Proposition 6
changes the Constitution to ban
involuntary servitude as a punishment
for crime. It also bans state prisons
from disciplining people who refuse to
work. However, Proposition 6 states
it does not stop prisons from giving
people time credits for working.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Potential Increase or Decrease in State
and Local Criminal Justice Costs.

The fscal efects of Proposition 6
on state and local criminal justice
costs are uncertain. This is because it
would depend on how Proposition 6
would change rules around work for
people in state prison and county
jail and how people would respond
to those changes. For example, if
people in prison and jail no longer face
consequences for refusing to work,

CONTINUED
prisons and/or jails might have to fnd
other ways to encourage working. If
this is done by increasing pay, costs
would increase. If this is done by giving
more time credits instead, costs would
decrease because people would serve
less time. Any potential increase or
decrease in state and local criminal
justice costs likely would not exceed
the tens of millions of dollars each year
(annually). This amount is less than
one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total
General Fund budget. (The General
Fund is the account the state uses to
pay for most public services, including
education, health care, and prisons.)
Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
6 For the full text of Proposition 6, see page 97. Analysis | 35

Page 55 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1013 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING 6 INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 6 ★
6 Proposition 6: Ending Slavery in California’s
Carceral System
VOTE YES on PROPOSITION 6. Proposition 6
eliminates all forms of slavery and involuntary
servitude within California, ensuring no person is
subjected to such conditions regardless of their
confnement circumstances.

PROPOSITION 6 RESTORES HUMAN DIGNITY

BY ENDING FORCED LABOR, WHICH

CONSTITUTES SLAVERY AND VIOLATES
HUMAN RIGHTS. Incarcerated people should
have dignity and the agency to pursue a
rehabilitative path because forced labor serves
no rehabilitative purpose. This amendment
focuses on the moral imperative of allowing
voluntary work assignments, emphasizing the
importance of human rights.

PROPOSITION 6 ENHANCES PUBLIC SAFETY
BY PRIORITIZING REHABILITATION. Forced
labor in prisons is cruel and unfair, often
leading to harsh punishments like violence,
solitary confnement, and denial of services.

These practices undermine rehabilitation
and increase the likelihood of reofending. In
contrast, Proposition 6 expands voluntary prison
work programs and ensures dignity, choice,
and rehabilitation. Incarcerated individuals will
voluntarily take part in education, job training,
and other programs that help prevent crimes
against Californians.

ENDING SLAVERY IS A BIPARTISAN PRIORITY
WITH WIDESPREAD SUPPORT. ACA 8, now
known as Proposition 6, passed unanimously
in the Assembly (68-0) and with overwhelming
approval in the Senate (33-3). California is
one of 16 states that still allow this practice,
highlighting the urgent need for reform.

PROPOSITION 6 SUPPORTS THE NATIONAL

MOVEMENT BY CLOSING THE LOOPHOLE
IN CALIFORNIA’S VERSION OF THE 13TH
AMENDMENT. While it does not change federal
law, it upholds justice by preventing forced
labor in California. Voluntary work programs
reduce recidivism by ofering skill development
and rehabilitation, aiding formerly incarcerated
individuals in reintegrating into society.

Productive work, rooted in dignity, allows
reintegration by letting formerly incarcerated
people use their work experiences as proof of
their eforts.

Many states have amended their constitutions to
close the loopholes that allow forced labor and
involuntary servitude under certain conditions.

This includes signifcant voter support: over
66% in Colorado (2018), over 80% in Utah,
and over 68% in Nebraska (2020). In 2022,
similar measures saw over 76% approval in
Alabama, over 55% in Oregon, over 79% in
Tennessee, and over 88% in Vermont. Nevada
is also referring this issue to voters for the
2024 election. Additionally, federal legislators
are moving this session to close the loophole
in the 13th Amendment with Senate Joint
Resolution 33, introduced by Senators Jef
Merkley and Cory Booker, and House Joint
Resolution 72 by Representative Nikema
Williams.

Lori Wilson, Assemblymember
California Legislature
Dolores Huerta, Executive Director
Dolores Huerta Foundation
Stephen Downing, Deputy Chief (Ret.)
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
36 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 56 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1014 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 6
★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 6 ★

NO ARGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION 6 WAS SUBMITTED.
6 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 37

Page 57 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1015 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION RAISES MINIMUM WAGE.
32 INITIATIVE STATUTE.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 97 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• California’s minimum wage is currently $16 per
hour. This measure 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.

This measure does not amend those laws.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE

OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL
IMPACT:
• State and local government costs could
increase or decrease. This change likely would
not exceed the high hundreds of millions of
dollars annually.
• State and local tax revenues likely would
decrease. This revenue loss likely would not
exceed a few hundred million dollars annually.
32 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
State and Local Laws Set Minimum Wages.

Employers must pay their workers at least the
minimum wage. California’s minimum wage
currently is $16 per hour. Some local governments
have higher minimum wages. Minimum wage
laws do not apply to independent contractors and
other self-employed people.

Infation Adjustments Under Current Law. Prices
tend to go up over time. These rising prices are
called “infation. ” The state adjusts its minimum
wage every year based on infation. Each
adjustment matches U.S. infation, except in
two cases:
• If infation is negative, the adjustment is zero.
• If infation exceeds 3.5 percent, the
adjustment is 3.5 percent.

State Sets Higher Minimum Wages for Some
Employers. State laws set higher minimum wages
for employers in some industries. For example,
most fast food restaurants must pay their workers
at least $20 per hour.

PROPOSAL
Higher Minimum Wage in 2025. In 2025,
California would have diferent minimum wages
for employers of diferent sizes. Employers with
26 or more employees would have a minimum
wage of $18 per hour. Employers with 25 or
fewer employees would have a minimum wage
of $17 per hour. Without Proposition 32, the
minimum wage for all employees would be about
$16.50 per hour. The proposition would not
change any local or industry-specifc minimum
wages.

Minimum Wage $18 Per Hour in 2026. In 2026,
the minimum wage would be $18 per hour for all
employees. Without Proposition 32, it likely would
be about $17 per hour.

Infation Adjustments Paused Until 2027. The
minimum wage would be adjusted for infation
every year starting in 2027. These adjustments
would follow the current rules described earlier.
38 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 58 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1016 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONRAISES MINIMUM WAGE.

INITIATIVE STATUTE.
32 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

FISCAL EFFECTS
Fiscal Efects Depend on Economic Efects.

Proposition 32 could have a wide range of
economic efects:
• Higher Wages. Workers who would have
made less than $18 per hour would instead
make $18 or more per hour by 2026. Higher
minimum wages also tend to push up wages
for other workers. This means that many
workers making a bit more than $18 per hour
also likely would get a raise.
• Likely Higher Prices. Higher wages would
increase costs for many businesses. Some
businesses likely would charge customers
higher prices. The overall price increase from
Proposition 32 likely would be smaller than
one-half of 1 percent.
• Likely Lower Profts. The costs of higher
wages likely would reduce some businesses’
profts.
• Efect on Jobs. The number of jobs in the
state could go up or down. This change
likely would be smaller than one-quarter of 1
percent.

Government Costs Could Go Up or Down.

Proposition 32 would increase state and local
government costs in some ways but would
decrease them in other ways:
• Higher Government Costs to Pay for
Workers. The state and many local
governments would have higher costs to pay
their employees. They also would have higher
costs to pay for work done by workers who
are not their employees.
• Savings From Lower Enrollment in
Health and Human Services Programs.

Proposition 32 would change the number
of people enrolled in health and human

CONTINUED
services programs (such as California’s
Medicaid program, Medi-Cal) because it
would change people’s incomes. These
enrollment changes likely would reduce state
and local government costs.

Combining these two pieces, total state and local
government costs could go up or down. This
change likely would not exceed the high hundreds
of millions of dollars each year (annually). (Total
state and local government spending in California
exceeds $500 billion annually.)
The change in costs to the state’s General Fund
likely would be less than one-half of 1 percent
of the state’s total General Fund budget. (The
General Fund is the account the state uses to pay
for most public services, including education,
health care, and prisons.)
Lower Revenues. Proposition 32 would afect
income tax and sales tax revenues because it
would change incomes and prices. Overall, the
proposition likely would reduce state and local
government revenues. Revenues would be lower
mainly due to lower incomes for business owners.

The net revenue loss likely would not exceed a
few hundred million dollars annually. Last year,
total state and local revenue from these taxes was
about $200 billion.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
32 For the full text of Proposition 32, see page 97. Analysis | 39

Page 59 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1017 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION RAISES MINIMUM WAGE.
32 INITIATIVE STATUTE.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 32 ★
Every Californian who works at least a full-time, 40-hour work week should be able to aford life’s basic needs.

However, there are about 2 million Californians who are working full time, and more, but earn less than $18 per hour. Most of these Californians who earn less than $18 per hour are heads of their households. Most of these
Californians who earn less than $18 per hour have kids.

We can all agree that Californians who work hard, working full time or more, should not live in poverty. But that’s exactly how millions of Californians are living because their wages are too low to aford how expensive life has become in California.

In addition, when people who work hard are paid wages
that aren’t enough to cover life’s basic needs, a bigger burden is put on taxpayers to make up the diference
that some corporations aren’t honoring. It is wrong for all the businesses that do right by their workers that
some corporations are allowed to pay Californians such
low wages that those workers are left needing taxpayer
funded aid. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing some
corporations that choose to pay extremely low wages
and enabling them to keep the rest as excess proft for
their owners.

By raising the minimum wage to $18 per hour,
Proposition 32 will bring a much-needed raise to 2 million California workers and create a more prosperous system
where big corporations aren’t allowed to exploit smaller businesses, our communities, and our hardest working
neighbors.

Finally, when more Californians earn a fair wage for their work, our entire economy does better. Working people
are better able to aford their rent, provide three meals per day for their kids, and all of that spending boosts the economies of our local communities. That boosted
spending creates more jobs in our communities, which
makes everyone better of.

It’s time that we make California a place that working
families can aford. By raising the minimum wage to $18, Proposition 32 will directly better the lives of 2 million Californians who will get a raise and we will stimulate more spending in our communities that most need that boost.

That boost will create more jobs and more prosperity
for everyone.

VOTE YES ON PROP. 32!
Joe Sanberg, Anti-Poverty Advocate
32 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 32 ★ VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 32!
Ballot measures shouldn’t be toys for multimillionaires.

ONE PERSON ALONE—A MULTIMILLIONAIRE—IS
BEHIND PROP. 32.

One person alone wrote Prop. 32, spent millions getting it on the ballot, and wrote the argument for Prop. 32.

SMALL BUSINESS AND WORKING FAMILY ADVOCATES
DON’T WANT PROP. 32
Many of California’s leading voices for working families and small businesses didn’t even want Prop. 32 on the
ballot, but this one author had to have it his way.

Even leading advocates for higher minimum wages urged
him to pull Prop. 32 from the ballot. He refused.

One person shouldn’t try to dictate labor policy for
39 million Californians, with the only qualifcation that he’s rich. No wonder Prop. 32 is so fawed.

Prop. 32 forces small businesses to INCREASE PRICES,
adding to infation and raising the cost of living in
California even more. That hurts working families!
Prop. 32 raises costs for state and local governments
by BILLIONS, meaning they’ll cut vital services and
raise taxes.

Prop. 32 COSTS JOBS, with the greatest impact on teens
and people of color who are trying to get a career started with entry level jobs. That’s why leaders across California who previously supported minimum wage increases have
changed course and asked for them to be slowed down.

And Prop. 32 worsens California’s increasingly complex
patchwork of minimum wage laws, confusing both workers
and small business owners.

Prop. 32 seems to be an ego project, not a real solution for working Californians.

Get the facts at StopProp32.com.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32!
Jot Condie, President
California Restaurant Association
Jennifer Barrera, President
California Chamber of Commerce
Ron Fong, President
California Grocers Association
40 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 60 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1018 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONRAISES MINIMUM WAGE.

INITIATIVE STATUTE.
32 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 32 ★
VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 32.

PROPOSITION 32 INCREASES YOUR PERSONAL COSTS;
MAKES CALIFORNIA’S HUGE BUDGET DEFICIT WORSE;
PUNISHES SMALL BUSINESSES; COSTS JOBS; AND
HURTS THE VERY WORKERS IT’S SUPPOSED TO HELP.

PROPOSITION 32 MAKES OUR BUDGET DEFICIT WORSE

BY BILLIONS EACH YEAR AND JEOPARDIZES FUNDING

FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND EDUCATION
California just experienced a $50 billion budget defcit.

Many cities and counties face huge defcits as well. The independent fscal analysis of Prop. 32 in this same ballot pamphlet says a minimum wage increase will likely cost
state and local governments billions of dollars EACH
YEAR.

That means two things. You paying higher taxes to make
up the diference and cuts to important programs like
K–12 education, public safety, healthcare, and getting
homeless people of the streets.

PROPOSITION 32 INCREASES PRICES FOR

CALIFORNIANS WHEN WE CAN LEAST AFFORD IT
The cost of living in California is too high. Prices are up more than 20% in the last three years for food, gas, utilities, healthcare, and clothing. Proposition 32 makes it even worse as it will increase costs on family-owned businesses who can least aford it and force small
employers to increase prices for consumers to absorb
the higher minimum wage. Looking at the new California
fast-food minimum wage law, fast-food prices in California have gone up 7% in six months, the fastest in the nation.

Some well-known “value meals” now cost over 40% more
in California than the rest of the country.

Prop. 32 brings these record-setting price increases to small restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores,
small retail shops, farmers, and more, so we’re going to see the same sticker shock everywhere.

PROPOSITION 32 WILL HURT SMALL, FAMILY-OWNED

BUSINESSES
Proposition 32 imposes the same high minimum wage
on small businesses as it does for large corporations.

Small businesses are more vulnerable to the impact
of this higher cost and could force these family-owned
businesses in our neighborhoods and communities to
shut down.

PROPOSITION 32 COSTS JOBS
Raising the minimum wage again sounds like something
that would help workers struggling to make ends meet.

Who doesn’t want workers to get paid more? It makes us
feel good if we think we’re helping our fellow Californians out.

But the reality has now been confrmed, raising the
minimum wage, especially when we raise it TOO FAST,
costs thousands of jobs, and when a worker loses a job, or the company goes out of business, the wage is ZERO
DOLLARS PER HOUR. And this job loss especially impacts
our vulnerable populations the most, with young African- American, Latino, and non-college educated workers
trying to fnd their frst jobs facing the biggest burdens.

Get the facts at StopProp32.com, and vote NO ON
PROPOSITION 32!
Jot Condie, President
California Restaurant Association
Jennifer Barrera, President
California Chamber of Commerce
Ron Fong, President
California Grocers Association
32 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 32 ★
YES on PROPOSITION 32 means a RAISE for SERVICE,
ESSENTIAL, AND OTHER WORKERS to help them aford
life’s basic needs.

YES ON PROPOSITION 32 means a RAISE for SINGLE
MOMS to help them aford life’s basic needs.

YES ON PROPOSITION 32 means CLOSING THE GENDER
PAY GAP for over a million working women.

The goods and services you buy have become more
expensive because CORPORATIONS ARE MAKING
RECORD PROFITS! CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS
HAVE INCREASED 100% since the year 2000. The STOCK
MARKET has repeatedly made ALL-TIME HIGHS this year.

CORPORATE LOBBYISTS who will MAKE MORE MONEY
BY KEEPING WAGES LOW are trying to convince you that
raising the minimum wage will increase the cost of living, but that’s false. Record corporate proft margins are what has increased the cost of living. Now, we have to RAISE

THE MINIMUM WAGE TO HELP SERVICE WORKERS,
ESSENTIAL WORKERS, SINGLE MOMS, and other
WORKING CALIFORNIANS to be able to AFFORD LIFE’S
BASIC NEEDS.

YES on PROP. 32!
Learn more at: livingwageact.com
Ada F. Briceño, Co-President
UNITE HERE Local 11
Nanette Barragán, Congresswoman
U.S. House of Representatives, California 44th District Saru Jayaraman, President
One Fair Wage
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 41

Page 61 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1019 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT 33 CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 100 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Current state law (the Costa-Hawkins
Rental Housing Act of 1995) 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 frst occupied after
February 1, 1995; (2) single-family
homes; and (3) condominiums.
• This measure would repeal that state
law and would prohibit the state from
limiting the ability of cities and counties
to maintain, enact, or expand residential
rent-control ordinances.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE

OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL
IMPACT:
• Reduction in local property tax revenues
of at least tens of millions of dollars
annually due to likely expansion of rent
control in some communities.
33 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
Rental Housing Is Expensive in California.

Renters in California typically pay about
50 percent more for housing than renters in
other states. In some parts of the state, rent
costs are more than double the national
average. Rent is high in California because
the state does not have enough housing for
everyone who wants to live here. People
who want to live here must compete with
other renters for housing, which increases
rents.

Several Cities Have Rent Control Laws.

Some local governments in California have
laws that limit how much landlords can
increase rents from one year to the next.

These laws often are called rent control.

About one-quarter of Californians live
in communities with local rent control.

Examples of places with rent control are the
Cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
San Jose.

State Law Limits Rent Increases. In addition
to local rent control laws, a state law
prevents most landlords from increasing a
tenant’s rent by more than 5 percent plus
infation (up to a total of 10 percent) in a
year. This law lasts until 2030.

State Law Limits Local Rent Control.

Another state law, known as the Costa-
Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-
Hawkins), limits local rent control laws in
three main ways. First, rent control cannot
apply to any single-family homes. Second,
rent control cannot apply to any housing
built on or after February 1, 1995. Third,
rent control laws generally cannot tell
landlords what they can charge a new renter
when frst moving in. Instead, rent control
can only limit how much landlords increase
rent for existing renters.

PROPOSAL
Allows Local Governments to Expand Rent
Control. Proposition 33 eliminates Costa-
Hawkins. Under the proposition, cities and
counties can control rents for any housing.

They also can limit how much a landlord
42 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 62 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1020 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONEXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
33 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
may increase rents when a new renter
moves in. The proposition itself does not
make any changes to existing local rent
control laws. Generally, cities and counties
would have to take separate actions to
change their local laws.

Limits State Ability to Regulate Rent
Control. Proposition 33 prevents the state
from taking future actions to limit local rent
control.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Efects on Renters and Landlords. If
Proposition 33 passes, local rent control
laws probably would expand in some
communities. This could have many efects
on renters, landlords, and rental properties.

The most likely efects are:
• Some renters who live in properties
covered by rent control would spend
less on rent. Some renters who live in
properties not covered by rent control
would spend more on rent.
• Some renters would move less often.
• Fewer homes would be available to
rent. One reason for this is that some
landlords would sell their properties
to new owners who would live there
instead of renting it out.
• The value of rental housing would
decline because potential landlords
would not want to pay as much for
these properties.

The size of these efects would depend on
how many properties end up being covered

CONTINUED
by local rent control and how much rents
are limited. These things would be decided
by future actions of local governments and
voters.

Reduced Local Property Tax Revenues.

A decline in the value of rental properties
would reduce the amount of property
taxes paid by landlords. This would reduce
property tax revenues for cities, counties,
special districts, and schools. With time,
these property tax reductions likely would
be at least tens of millions of dollars each
year (annually). This is less than one-half of
1 percent of all property tax revenue. About
half of the reduction would be property tax
revenues that would have gone to schools.

In some years, the state might give more
money to schools to cover their losses.

Increased Local Government Costs. If local
rent control laws expand, local governments
could have increased costs to carry out
these laws. These costs could range from
a few million dollars to tens of millions of
dollars annually. These costs likely would be
paid by fees on landlords.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
33 For the full text of Proposition 33, see page 100. Analysis | 43

Page 63 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1021 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT 33 CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 33 ★
33 Where will I live?—This is the question that haunts
California’s 17 million renters. 55% of Californians are rent burdened, paying more than 30% of their income
on rent and there is no end in sight. Rent increases are far outstripping pay increases. A starting teacher, cop, or fre fghter is paying half their salary to aford the average apartment in California’s cities. Many who live on a fxed income are one rent increase away from homelessness—
and seniors represent the fastest growing homeless
population. Something has to give. The afordable housing crisis is destroying the California Dream.

California, the Golden State, was once the land of
opportunity. However, things have changed dramatically.

Nearly one million people have left California in the last fve years. If this mass exodus continues, it will have
catastrophic consequences for our state. California faces a $68 billion defcit which will only get worse as young talented people leave and the needy remain.

We love California. It is a land of natural beauty. We are at the cutting edge of technological innovation with vast amounts of wealth. Yet, based on the cost of living, we are the poorest state in America. We have way too many seniors, single parents, low-wage workers, and veterans choosing between paying rent and putting food on the table.

The housing crisis is complex. There isn’t one magic bullet to solve it, but the place we have to start is keeping people in their homes. The only practical way to do it is to allow local government to enact and expand rent control because one size doesn’t ft all. What’s practical for Los Angeles doesn’t work in Los Gatos.

We need to build more afordable housing and preserve the afordable units we have. But while we are waiting, we need to protect tenants and keep them housed—when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

Rent control is an American tradition since 1919 and works well in many cities. It was largely shut down in 1995 when the landlord lobby convinced Sacramento to drastically
curtail it. Ever since, corporate landlords have made sure that the Legislature doesn’t modify the law no matter how bad things get.

We understand that mom and pop landlords have invested
their life savings into their buildings and can identify with the plight of their tenants. The CA Constitution guarantees them a reasonable rate of return. But it is the billionaire corporate landlords who are calling the shots and causing skyrocketing rents.

Even if you are not a renter, your quality of life and the value of your property are still harmed by the housing crisis.

Proposition 33 will return fairness to the equation. Visit www.yeson33.org
Supporters: California Democratic Party, Veterans’ Voices, California Nurses Association, CA Alliance for Retired
Americans, Housing Is a Human Right, American Federation of Teachers 1521, 2121, Tenants Together, Consumer
Watchdog, Coalition for Economic Survival, Social Security Works, Mental Health Advocacy, Housing NOW, ACCE,
UNITE HERE Local 11
Basil Kimbrew, Executive Director
Veterans’ Voices
Pauline Brooks, Board President
California Alliance for Retired Americans
William Arroyo, Board President
AIDS Healthcare Foundation / Housing Is a Human Right
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 33 ★
They’re at it again. Proponents of Prop. 33 have taken
millions of taxpayer dollars—money that is supposed to be used to help low-income HIV and AIDS patients—and spent it on yet another of their anti-housing crusades.

Once again, they are pushing a measure that will hurt small mom and pop landlords.

AHF, which has received billions of taxpayer dollars meant to serve patients, has diverted that money to pay for things that have nothing to do with healthcare—building their
own real estate empire, while housing people in slum-like conditions in buildings they refuse to fx, and being fned repeatedly for their misuse of funds.

Just like this measure, AHF is not what it appears to be. But don’t take our word for it. Read the stories that show AHF’s true colors:

One of the state’s largest slumlords https://www.latimes. com/homeless-housing/story/2023-11-16/aids-healthcare-
foundation-low-income-housing-landlords
Even allowing a blind tenant to fall down an open elevator shaft https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/
story/2023-01-20/ahf-madison-hotel-elevator-lawsuit-story Meanwhile, they are wasting taxpayer dollars on lawsuits to block new housing https://www.sfchronicle.com/
politics/article/Lawsuit-seeks-to-block-Scott-Wiener-s- rezoning-16480766.php and spending millions on political campaigns to push its no-growth agenda: https://www.
latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-aids-foundation-political- spending-20170221-story.html
The state even terminated its multi-million dollar contracts with AHF, citing “improper negotiation tactics” https://www. latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-30/california-aids- healthcare-foundation-state-contract
And audits by LA County found AHF overcharged
taxpayers by millions https://archive.kpcc.org/blogs/
politics/2013/07/18/14304/aids-healthcare-foundation-
asks-judge-to-delay-la/
Don’t be misled by AHF’s latest scheme to fool California voters. Vote No on Prop. 33.

Michael Hedges, President
California Small Business Association
Julian Canete, President
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
While they claim to fght for tenants, they are throwing low- Rev. Dwight Williams, Chair income tenants out on the street, while suing dozens of poor California Senior Alliance people in small-claims court: https://www.poz.com/article/ aids-healthcare-foundation-reportedly-houses-tenants-
squalid-conditions
44 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 64 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1022 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONEXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
33 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 33 ★
PROP. 33 IS A DEEPLY FLAWED SCHEME THAT WILL

INCREASE HOUSING COSTS AND BLOCK AFFORDABLE

HOUSING
If Prop. 33 seems familiar, it’s because nearly 60% of
California voters rejected the same fawed scheme in 2018 and 2020. Seniors, veterans, and afordable housing experts all oppose Prop. 33 because it will make the housing crisis dramatically worse. The Housing Action Coalition calls
Prop. 33 “deeply fawed and deceptively anti-housing. ”
Here's why you should vote NO on Prop. 33:

FUNDED BY NOTORIOUS SLUMLORD
Prop. 33 was written and bankrolled by Corporate CEO
Michael Weinstein of AHF. The Los Angeles Times describes Weinstein as a “slumlord” with a long record of health
and safety violations and unfair evictions. State housing regulators cited his residents living in “squalid conditions, exposed to roach and bedbug infestations. ”
NOT WHAT IT SEEMS. PROP. 33 IS A TROJAN HORSE THAT

OVERTURNS STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWS
Prop. 33 is misleading. The measure could efectively
overturn more than 100 state housing laws, including laws making it easier to build afordable housing, and fair housing and tenant eviction protections. It could also strip the Attorney General’s ability to enforce certain current housing laws. It’s why one of the state’s most notorious corporate “slumlords” is bankrolling Prop. 33.

WORSENS HOUSING CRISIS
Economists and housing experts at Stanford and UC
Berkeley say Prop. 33 will make California’s housing crisis signifcantly worse by reducing the construction of new
afordable housing. Prop. 33 will make it harder to become a homeowner or fnd a place to rent, driving up costs for renters and home buyers.

ELIMINATES HOMEOWNER PROTECTIONS
Prop. 33 takes away basic protections for homeowners and allows bureaucrats, politicians, and regulators to tell single- family homeowners how much they can charge to rent out
a single room. Millions of homeowners will be treated just like corporate landlords and subject to regulations and price controls enacted by unelected boards.

WEAKENS RENTER PROTECTIONS
Prop. 33 undermines the strongest statewide rent control law in the nation signed by Governor Newsom and has no
protections for renters.

REDUCES HOME VALUES UP TO 25%
Non-partisan researchers at MIT estimate extreme rent
control measures like this result in an average reduction in home values up to 25%. Californians can’t aford to take another hit with the economic collapse threatening their home values and life savings.

OFFERS NO PROTECTIONS FOR SENIORS, VETERANS, OR

THE DISABLED
Prop. 33 has no protections for seniors, veterans, or the disabled. Veterans, seniors, and social justice organizations agree it’s the last thing we need right now.

OPPOSED BY A BROAD BIPARTISAN COALITION
Democrats and Republicans agree Prop. 33 will make
the housing crisis worse. Opponents include: California Small Business Association • California Senior Alliance • California Conference of Carpenters • California YIMBY • California Chamber of Commerce • Senate President Pro Tem Emeritus Toni Atkins • Democratic Assemblymember
Bufy Wicks • Marine Corps Veterans Association

DEMAND REAL HOUSING SOLUTIONS
We should Vote “NO” on Prop. 33 and demand real
solutions.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33. Learn more at
NoOnProp33.com
Ken Rosen, Economics Professor Emeritus
UC Berkeley
Jenna Abbott, Executive Director
California Council for Afordable Housing
Kendra Moss, Advisory Member
Women Veterans Alliance
33 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 33 ★
Who do you believe? The billionaire landlords behind the California Apartment Association which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing renter protections? Or do you believe the AIDS Healthcare Foundation—the largest AIDS organization in the world—Veterans’ Voices, the Coalition for Economic Survival, 100 local elected ofcials, and the cities of San Francisco, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood? The billionaire landlords will fll the airwaves and your mailbox with lies and deceptions paid for by extorting
exorbitant rents from people on social security or disability.

Our proposition is just 23 words. It allows cities to regulate rents the way they did until 1995 when Sacramento, at the demand of these same billionaires, took that right away— nothing more. Every city will decide for themselves whether or not they need rent control.

Academics and non-profts for hire will say anything the billionaire landlords want them to for a price.

Believe your own eyes. We are facing a $68 billion defcit made worse by the one million people who have left
California. More than half of California’s 17 million renters are paying more than 30% of their income on rent.

The billionaire landlords are using fear to get homeowners and renters to vote against your own interests. Homeowners will only beneft from healthy communities. Renters are
desperate to remain in their homes.

Rent control is an American tradition since 1919. New
York and many other cities with rent control have only seen property values soar.

Vote Yes—the rent is too damn high.

Sandy Reding, President
California Nurses Association
Pauline Brooks, Board President
California Alliance for Retired Americans
Larry Gross, Executive Director
Coalition for Economic Survival
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 45

Page 65 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1023 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY 34 CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 103 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Requires health care providers
meeting specifed criteria to spend
98% of revenues from federal discount
prescription drug program on direct
patient care.
• Applies only to health care providers
that: (1) spent over $100,000,000
in any ten-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.
• Penalizes noncompliance with spending
restrictions by revoking health care
licenses and tax-exempt status.
• Permanently authorizes state to
negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices on
statewide basis.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S

ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased state costs, likely in the
millions of dollars annually, to enforce
new rules on certain health care entities.

Afected entities would pay fees to cover
these costs.
34 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND

DRUG COVERAGE IN MEDI-CAL
Medi-Cal Pays for Prescription Drugs
for Low-Income People. Medi-Cal is a
federal-state program that provides health
coverage for low-income people. This
coverage includes the cost of prescription
drugs.

Medi-Cal Has a New Approach to Pay
for Drugs. Before 2019, Medi-Cal paid
for the cost of prescription drugs in
diferent ways. In 2019, the state adopted
a single approach called “Medi-Cal Rx. ”
Medi-Cal Rx likely saves the state money
because Medi-Cal pays for drugs at more
discounted prices.

New Approach Is Not in State Law. Medi-
Cal Rx is not refected in state law, but it
is the approach used to pay for drugs in
Medi-Cal.

FEDERAL DRUG DISCOUNT PROGRAM
Federal Program Provides Discounts on
Drugs to Certain Health Care Providers.

Under a federal program, drug makers
provide discounts on their drugs to
hospitals, clinics, and other providers.

To qualify for these discounts, providers
must meet certain rules. Eligible providers
are public or private nonprofts that focus
on serving low-income people. (These
public and private nonprofts generally
are exempt from paying taxes on their
revenue.)
Providers Tend to Earn Revenue From
Federal Discounts. Providers tend to
earn net revenue from the federal drug
discount program. They do so by charging
46 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 66 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1024 of 1052 ends

Figure 1
Restrictions Only Apply if Four Conditions Are Met
Proposition 34's Restrictions Apply to a Health Care Entity if It:
• Participates in the federal drug discount program .
• Has (or has ever had) a license in California to operate as a health plan, pharmacy, or clinic, or has had certain contracts with Medi-Cal or Medicare . • Has a ten-year period where it spent more than $100 million on purposes other than direct patient care.
• Owns and operates (or has previously owned and operated) multifamily housing units with at least 500 violations with a severity level of "high."

PROPOSITIONRESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
34 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
payors of health care (such as private
health plans and government programs)
more than the cost to provide the drugs.

However, providers generally do not earn
net revenue on these drugs in Medi-Cal.

This is because state law bans providers
from charging Medi-Cal more than the
discounted price of the drug.

Providers Decide How to Spend Revenue.

According to the federal government,
the intent of the federal drug discount
program is to allow eligible providers to
increase services and serve more low-
income patients. Providers can do so by
spending their net revenue on services to
patients. Federal and state law, however,
does not directly restrict how providers
spend their revenue from federal drug
discounts.

STATE LICENSING
Health Care Entities Must Be Licensed.

Health care entities must be licensed
to provide services in the state. Several
departments license health care entities,
such as the Department of Managed

CONTINUED
Health Care (for most health plans) and
the Department of Public Health (for
hospitals, clinics, and certain other kinds
of facilities).

Licensed Entities Must Follow Certain
Rules. Licensed entities must follow
certain rules. For example, they cannot
engage in conduct that is unprofessional,
dishonest, or harmful to public health or
safety. An entity that violates these rules
can face penalties, including losing its
license (which means the entity can no
longer operate as a health care entity).

PROPOSAL
Restricts How Certain Entities Spend
Revenue From Federal Discounts.

Proposition 34 creates new rules about
how certain health care entities spend
revenue from the federal drug discount
program. Specifcally, the entities would
have to spend at least 98 percent of their
net revenue earned in California on health
care services provided directly to patients
(“direct patient care”). As Figure 1 shows,
34 For the full text of Proposition 34, see page 103. Analysis | 47

Page 67 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1025 of 1052 ends

2 Proposition 34 Establishes Four Penalties
For Ten Years:
• Entity loses Californ ia tax-exempt status.
• Entit y loses license.
• Entity cannot receive state and local government contracts or grants. • Entity's leaders cannot serve leadership roles in a Ca lifornia health plan, pharmacy, or clinic.

PROPOSITION RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY 34 CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
34 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
these rules apply only to entities that meet
certain conditions (“afected entities”).

Requires Afected Entities to Report
Annually to the State. Proposition 34
requires afected entities to report
certain information to the state each
year (annually). The afected entities
would have to report how much revenue
they earned in California and nationwide
from the federal drug discount program
and how they spent this revenue. The
state would use this information to help
determine compliance with the new
rules. The proposition allows the state to
charge fees on afected entities to cover
its enforcement costs. Under Proposition
34, afected entities that do not submit
timely and accurate information
would be engaging in conduct that is
unprofessional, dishonest, or harmful to
public health or safety.

Establishes Penalties for Violating
Rules. As Figure 2 shows, Proposition 34
establishes four penalties for violating
the new rules. All four penalties would
apply if afected entities spend less
than 98 percent of their net federal

CONTINUED
discount revenue on direct patient care.

The penalties also would apply if the
afected entities engage in conduct that is
unprofessional, dishonest, or harmful to
public health or safety.

Adds Medi-Cal’s Approach to Pay for
Drugs to State Law. Proposition 34 adds
Medi-Cal Rx to state law. Because Medi-
Cal Rx already is in efect, the proposition
does not change the current approach
Medi-Cal uses to pay for drugs.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Has Limited Statewide Fiscal Efects.

Under Proposition 34, likely few entities
would meet the conditions described in
Figure 1. The exact number of afected
entities, however, is not known. Because
few entities would be afected, the
proposition’s statewide fscal efect
(described below) would be limited.

Increases State Enforcement Costs,
Paid by New Fees. Proposition 34 would
increase state costs to enforce the new
restrictions. These costs likely would be in
the millions of dollars annually. The state
48 | Analysis

Page 68 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1026 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONRESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
34 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
would cover this cost by charging fees on
afected entities.

Could Have Other Fiscal Efects.

Proposition 34 could have other uncertain
fscal efects, such as:
• Savings From Increased Spending on
Direct Patient Care. Some afected
entities could increase spending
on direct patient care to comply
with Proposition 34. If this increase
results in more spending on Medi-Cal
patients, there could be savings to
the state. This would depend on what
health care services are provided.
• Costs From Fewer Federal Drug
Discounts. Afected entities would
have to pay fees and report to the
state annually. Some entities might
change their operations to avoid these
requirements. For example, they
could stop participating in the federal
discount program. To the extent this
results in fewer federal discounts to
the Medi-Cal program, there would be
state costs.

CONTINUED
• Fiscal Efects From Violating Rules.

Were an afected entity to violate
Proposition 34’s restrictions or
engage in bad conduct, it would
face penalties (such as the loss
of its tax-exempt status and its
health care licenses for ten years).

These penalties could put it out of
business. This could afect state tax
revenue, state spending on Medi-
Cal, or spending on other state and
local government programs. The
fscal efect would depend on which
afected entities face penalties.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
34 For the full text of Proposition 34, see page 103 Analysis | 49

Page 69 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1027 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY 34 CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 34 ★
34 Rising healthcare costs are squeezing millions of
Californians. Prop. 34 will give California patients and taxpayers much needed relief, and lowers state drug
costs, while saving California taxpayers billions.

CUT PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES
Prop. 34 will drastically cut the cost of prescription drugs for Medi-Cal patients by permanently authorizing the
State of California to negotiate lower Medi-Cal prescription drug costs.

PROTECT PATIENTS AND TAXPAYERS
Prop. 34 stands to save taxpayers millions of dollars
more every year by requiring the greediest healthcare
corporations to spend at least 98% of the taxpayer
funds they receive through the drug discount program in California on directly treating patients.

STOP HEALTHCARE CORPORATION FINANCIAL ABUSE

IN CALIFORNIA
Prop. 34 stops egregious fnancial abuse of the taxpayer- funded drug discount program in California.

Over 30 years ago, the federal government began ofering discounted prescription drugs and other treatments to
uninsured and low-income patients. However, healthcare
corporations across the country have used a legal
loophole to game the system and divert money from the
drug discount program to pet projects that have done
nothing to beneft patients: wasting money on renting out football stadiums to put on private concerts, giving their executives multimillion dollar salaries, paying for naming rights on sports stadiums, spending millions on lobbying, and dumping millions more into political campaigns.

Worse yet, these same corporations that get billions
in taxpayer dollars have spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on housing projects that are often run like slums.

An LA Times investigation found that residents at several of these housing projects were forced to live in squalid conditions, exposed to roach and bedbug infestations,
putting the health and safety of tenants at risk.

Prop. 34 will prevent this abuse from occurring in
California and requires drug discount program dollars
generated in California to be used for their intended
purpose: helping patients.

HOLD ABUSERS ACCOUNTABLE
Prop. 34 holds violators accountable. Healthcare
organizations that break the rules and misuse these
taxpayer dollars must either recommit to spending on
direct patient care or risk losing their California tax- exempt status and professional licenses.

Prop. 34 is targeted at those bad actors who have
continually abused the system to pocket billions of
taxpayer dollars for their own use. That’s why it is
supported by a wide coalition, including organizations
that advocate to help patients and leaders in the LGBTQ community. Those supporting Prop. 34 include the
California Chronic Care Coalition, the ALS Association, the Defeating Epilepsy Foundation, California Senior Alliance, AiArthritis, Support Fibromyalgia Network, Lupus and
Allied Diseases Association, Inc., and the Community
Access National Network.

It’s time to close the corporate loophole that allows
wealthy pharmacy corporations to divert money meant to
help patients. Protect Patients Now. Vote Yes on Prop. 34.

Learn more at YesOnProp34.com.

Assemblymember Evan Low, Former Chair
Legislative LGBT Caucus
Kelly Goss, Managing Director
The ALS Association
Nilza Serrano, Founder
Latino Heritage Los Angeles
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 34 ★
Vote No on 34—The Revenge Initiative. The California
Apartment Association, representing the billionaire
landlords, is lying through its teeth. Prop. 34 has one and only one purpose: to prevent AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) from supporting rent control.

Do you believe that these billionaire landlords are
suddenly so concerned about access to healthcare for
poor Californians? And it is a lie that it will lower drug costs since Medi-Cal has already implemented a low-cost drug
program.

AHF is the sponsor of Prop. 33—the rent control initiative.

Landlords are spending tens of millions to protect their obscene corporate profts while more than 50% of
California’s 17 million renters are paying more than 30% of their income on rent.

You might notice that they don’t even mention AHF by
name because they don’t want you to know that they want to harm the largest AIDS organization in the world.

They are lying when they call the federal 340B drug
discount program government money. 100% of the funds
derived from 340B come from discounts that come right
out of the pockets of drug companies. Don’t be fooled—
big pharma has contributed to many of the supporting
organizations for Prop. 34. A strong 340B program is good for California, bad for big pharma.

As they themselves admit, non-profts are permitted
by federal law to use these drug company discounts in
accordance with their non-proft mission—advocating for
rent control, women’s reproductive rights, and a healthy environment.

Vote No on The Revenge Initiative.

Jerilyn Stapleton, Board Member
National Organization for Women
Jamie Court, President
Consumer Watchdog
Larry Gross, Executive Director
Coalition for Economic Survival
50 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 70 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1028 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONRESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
34 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 34 ★
Proposition 34 is sponsored by the billionaire landlords who control the California Apartment Association (CAA).

This initiative is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It has only one purpose: to prevent AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF)
from promoting rent control. It claims to protect patients, but its real intent is to stop AHF from putting tenant
protections on the ballot.

On this same ballot is Proposition 33, the rent control initiative which is simply 23 words:
“The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control. ” AHF is the principal funder of this rent control initiative. Proposition 33 restores the ability of localities to stabilize rents and give some relief to California’s 17 million struggling renters.

CAA and the billionaire supporters who have been
gouging renters want to stop rent control at all costs.

Can anyone believe that these corporate landlords are
suddenly interested in healthcare? And guess who’s
behind the endless ads you will see for Prop. 34—the big drug companies through their bought and paid for front
groups. These two rogue industries are united in wanting to destroy AHF, which is the most powerful voice for lower rents and lower drug prices.

AHF is the largest AIDS organization in the world with
2 million lives in care in 47 countries across the globe.

Our mission is: Cutting Edge Medicine and Advocacy
Regardless of Ability to Pay.

AHF was born out of outrage that AIDS patients were often dying in the hallways of the county hospital. AIDS patients needed a home to die in. Fortunately, HIV treatment
has drastically improved so that today housing is the #1 problem facing our patients.

Proposition 34 is a grave danger to democracy. It seeks to weaponize the initiative process by allowing powerful interests to target a single organization to punish and shut them up. If passed, this proposition would threaten the ability of organizations to advocate for reproductive rights, renter needs, and environmental protections. The Los Angeles Times even described it as a “self-serving” ballot initiative that reached a “new low. ”
If this becomes the law, where will it stop? For this reason, it is opposed by The National Organization for Women,
Consumer Watchdog, The Coalition for Economic Survival, UNITE HERE Local 11, Dolores Huerta, and many others.

We trust that you, the voters, will see through this
corporate landlord scam and vote NO on Proposition 34.

Visit www.votenoon34.org for more information.

Jerilyn Stapleton, Board Member
National Organization for Women
Larry Gross, Executive Director
Coalition for Economic Survival
Condessa M. Curley, M.D. /MPH, Board Member
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 34 ★
34 When we have bad corporate actors that proft of public programs, the services our families rely upon take the
hit, including schools, public safety, and emergency
responders. The current system is being abused by
corporations that are wasting billions of dollars intended for patient care every year and making our communities
less safe, endangering the public’s health and safety.

Instead of helping patients, those funds are being used to:

Finance slums that are unsafe and violate health codes:
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/
story/2023-11-16/aids-healthcare-foundation-low-income- housing-landlords
Sue low-income tenants and throw them out on the street:
https://www.poz.com/article/aids-healthcare-foundation- reportedly-houses-tenants-squalid-conditions
Buy stadium naming rights:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/24/health/bon-
secours-mercy-health-proft-poor-neighborhood.html
And pay corporate CEOs millions:
https://lowninstitute.org/projects/2023-shkreli-awards/ Prop. 34 would stop the worst corporate abuses of
the federal low-cost prescription drug program and
ensure that money meant for patients is not wasted on
corporations’ pet projects, political crusades, or misused in ways that risk the public’s health and safety. Prop. 34 will ensure corporations that are misusing public funds are held accountable. It’s time to stop the rip-of. We
must make sure that money meant for patients is spent
on taking care of those who need help, not risking public safety. Vote Yes on 34.

Brian K. Rice, President
California Professional Firefghters
Stuart Fong, Chair
San Francisco Hep B Free
Rev. Dwight Williams, Chair
California Senior Alliance
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 51

Page 71 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1029 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL
35 HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 109 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• 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.
• Requires revenues to be used only
for specifed Medi-Cal services,
including primary and specialty care,
emergency care, family planning,
mental health, and prescription
drugs.
• Prohibits revenues from being used
to replace existing Medi-Cal funding.
• Caps administrative expenses and
requires independent audits of
programs receiving funding.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S

ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• In the short term, increased funding
for Medi-Cal and other health
programs between roughly $2 billion
and $5 billion annually (including
federal funds). Increased state
costs between roughly $1 billion
to $2 billion annually to implement
funding increases.
• In the long term, unknown efect on
state tax revenue, health program
funding, and state costs. Fiscal
efects depend on many factors, such
as whether the Legislature would
continue to approve the tax on health
plans in the future if Proposition 35 is
not passed by voters.
35 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND
State Charges a Specifc Tax on
Health Plans. Since 2009, California
typically has charged a specifc tax on
certain health plans, such as Kaiser
Permanente. This tax is called the
Managed Care Organization Provider
Tax (“health plan tax”). The tax has
worked diferently over time. Currently,
it charges plans based on the number
of people to whom they provide health
coverage, including those in Medi-Cal.

The tax rate is higher for those in Medi-
Cal compared to other kinds of health
coverage. (Medi-Cal is a federal-state
program that provides health coverage
for low-income people. The federal
government and the state share the
cost of the program. By charging the
health plan tax, the state can receive
more federal funding.)
State Uses Tax for Two Purposes.

The amount of revenue raised by the
health plan tax has changed over time.

Based on recent legislative action, we
estimate the tax is expected to result
52 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 72 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1030 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONPROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
35 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
in between $7 billion to $8 billion each
year (annually) to the state. The state
uses this money for two purposes.
• Paying for Existing Costs in Medi-
Cal. Some revenue helps pay for
existing costs in the Medi-Cal
program. Using the tax revenue in
this way allows the state to spend
less money from the General Fund
on Medi-Cal. (The General Fund
is the account the state uses
to pay for most public services,
including education, health care,
and prisons. Medi-Cal is expected
to get around $35 billion from the
General Fund this year.) In other
words, the health plan tax revenue
reduces costs to the state General
Fund.
• Increasing Funding for Medi-Cal
and Other Health Programs. Some
of the revenue increases funding
for Medi-Cal and other health
programs. For example, the state
is increasing Medi-Cal payments
to doctors and other health care
providers. This is a new use of
health plan tax revenue. Some of
these funding increases began in
2024, but most will begin in 2025
and 2026. Once they all begin in
2026, the increases likely would
result in around $4 billion more
for Medi-Cal annually. Around half
of this amount will come from the
health plan tax. (The rest will come
from increased federal funding.)

CONTINUED
Tax Will End, Unless It Is Approved
Again. The Legislature has not
permanently approved this tax.

Instead, it has approved it for a few
years at a time. The federal government
also must approve the tax. The tax was
most recently approved in 2023. It will
expire at the end of 2026, unless the
Legislature and federal government
approve it again.

PROPOSAL
Makes Existing Health Plan Tax
Permanent. Proposition 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.

Creates Rules on How State Uses
Tax Revenue. In addition to making
the health plan tax permanent,
Proposition 35 creates rules on how
to use the revenue. Generally, these
rules require the state to use more of
the revenue to increase funding for
Medi-Cal and other health programs.

The rules are diferent in the short term
(in 2025 and 2026) and the long term
(in 2027 and after). Proposition 35
also changes which Medi-Cal services
and other health programs get funding
increases compared to current law.
35 For the full text of Proposition 35, see page 109. Analysis | 53

Page 73 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1031 of 1052 ends

1 Proposition 35 Changes Which Services Get
Funding Increases
Funding Increases in the Short Term (in 2025 and 2026)
Doctors and other related providersb
Specified hospital services
Outpatient facilities
Safety net clinics
Behavioral health facilities
Reproductive health and family planning
Emergency medica I transportation
Nonemergency medical transportation
Private duty nursing
Certain long-term supports
Community health workers
Continuous Medi-Cal coverage for children up to
five-years old
Medi-Cal workforce programs
Doctor postgraduate training programs
Current Law
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Proposition 35a
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
C
✓
✓
a More services are eligible for funding increases in the long term (beginning in 2027). b Current law and Proposition 35 includ e some differences over which related providers get funding increases.
c Eligible for funding increases in the long term (beginning in 2027), depending on how much money is raised by the health plan tax.
35 PROPOSITION PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL
35 HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
Figure 1 shows these changes in the
short term.

FISCAL EFFECT
In Short Term, Three Key Fiscal
Efects. In the short term (in 2025 and
2026), Proposition 35 would have the
following key fscal efects:
• No Change to State Tax Revenue.

Proposition 35 does not change
the existing temporary tax on
health plans, which expires at the
end of 2026. For this reason, the
proposition would have no efect on
state tax revenue over this period
of time.
• Increased Funding for Health
Programs. Proposition 35 would
increase funding for Medi-Cal and
other health programs. This is
because the proposition requires
the state to use more health plan
54 | Analysis

Page 74 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1032 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONPROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
35 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
tax revenue for funding increases.

The total increase in funding
likely would be between roughly
$2 billion and $5 billion annually.

About half of this amount would
come from the tax on health plans.
(Because the federal government
shares the cost of Medi-Cal with
the state, the rest of the funding
increase would come from federal
funds. Including all fund sources,
Medi-Cal is expected to get over
$150 billion this year.)
• Increased State Costs. Proposition
35 would increase state costs.

This is because it reduces the
amount of health plan tax revenue
that can be used to help pay for
existing costs in Medi-Cal. Instead,
the state likely would have to use
more money from the General
Fund for this purpose. The annual
cost would be between roughly
$1 billion to $2 billion in 2025 and
2026. These amounts are between
one-half of 1 percent and 1 percent
of the state’s total General Fund
budget.

In Long Term, Unknown Fiscal Efects.

In the long term (2027 and after),
Proposition 35 makes the temporary
tax on health plans permanent and
creates new rules about how to spend
the money. The fscal efect of these
changes depends on many factors.

CONTINUED
For example, the state could approve
the tax in the future, as it has done
in the past, even if the proposition
is not passed by voters. Also, it is
uncertain how large of a tax the federal
government would approve in the
future. Given these uncertain factors,
the proposition’s long-term efects on
tax revenue, health program funding,
and state costs are unknown.

Temporarily Increases State Spending
Limit. The California Constitution has
various rules that impact the state
budget. One rule limits how much
state tax revenue can be spent on
any purpose annually. Voters may
increase this limit for up to four years
at a time. In line with these rules,
Proposition 35 temporarily increases
the limit by the size of the health plan
tax for four years. After the temporary
increase ends, the long-term efect of
the proposition on the state’s spending
limit is uncertain. This is because it is
unknown how Proposition 35 would
afect state tax revenue in the future.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
35 For the full text of Proposition 35, see page 109. Analysis | 55

Page 75 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1033 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL
35 HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 35 ★
35 CALIFORNIA’S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS IN CRISIS
Hospitals and health clinics are closing in rural and urban communities across California. Emergency rooms are
overcrowded. More than 40 California hospitals have
stopped ofering labor and delivery services. Patients
wait months to see a doctor for important preventative
care, and often cannot get an appointment for specialty care when needed. The healthcare crisis is made worse
because the state has redirected more than $30 billion
in healthcare funding over the last 15 years to other
purposes.

THE CRISIS IS WORST FOR CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN &

MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
More than 15 million Californians rely on Medi-Cal for
health insurance coverage, including more than 50% of
all children in the state and low-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. But lack of adequate and ongoing funding means Medi-Cal patients must wait
months to see primary care doctors or cardiologists,
cancer doctors, pediatric specialists, or orthopedists.

YES ON PROP. 35 PROVIDES DEDICATED FUNDING TO
IMPROVE THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR ALL OF US—

WITHOUT RAISING TAXES
Prop. 35 will address our most urgent healthcare priorities by securing dedicated, ongoing funding—without raising
taxes on individuals—to protect and expand access
to care at primary care and specialty care physicians,
community health clinics, hospitals, emergency rooms,
family planning and mental health providers. Prop. 35
extends an existing levy on health insurance companies
that will otherwise expire in 2026. And Prop. 35 prevents the state from redirecting these funds for non-healthcare purposes.

YES ON 35 PROTECTS AND EXPANDS ACCESS TO

HEALTHCARE FOR ALL PATIENTS
Prop. 35 dedicates funding for:
• Expanding access to preventative healthcare so patients don’t have to rely on crowded ERs or urgent care clinics as their primary source of care
• Reducing wait times in emergency rooms
• Hiring more frst responders and paramedics to reduce
emergency response times
• Primary care and physicians’ ofces
• Community health centers
• OBGYNs and specialty care like cancer and cardiology
care
• Family planning
• Expanded mental health treatment
• Healthcare workforce training to address the worker
shortage
• Services for Medi-Cal patients to expand access to
hospitals, physicians, women’s health centers, and
community clinics.

YES ON 35’s STRONG ACCOUNTABILITY

REQUIREMENTS ENSURE MONEY IS SPENT ON PATIENT
CARE
Prop. 35 prevents the state from redirecting these funds for non-healthcare purposes and requires that 99% of the revenues must go to patient care. It caps administrative expenses at 1%. Lastly, the measure requires annual
independent performance audits to ensure funds are
spent efectively and as intended.

PROP. 35 IS SUPPORTED BY FIRST RESPONDERS,

HEALTHCARE WORKERS, PHYSICIANS, NURSES, AND A

BIPARTISAN COALITION
Prop. 35 is supported by:
• International Association of EMTs and Paramedics
• Planned Parenthood Afliates of California
• California Medical Association
• American Academy of Pediatrics, California
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—
District IX
• California Chapter, American College of Emergency
Physicians
• California Primary Care Association
• La Clínica de la Raza
• Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County
• California Dental Association
• California Academy of Family Physicians
Yes on 35 will help address our urgent healthcare crisis and protect healthcare for all California patients.
www.VoteYes35.com
Dr. Yasuko Fukuda, Chair
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
Jack Yandell, Emergency Medical Technician (EMT)
International Association of EMTs and Paramedics
Jodi Hicks, CEO
Planned Parenthood Afliates of California
56 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 76 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1034 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONPROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL
HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
35 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 35 ★

NO ARGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION 35 WAS SUBMITTED.
35 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 57

Page 77 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1035 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR 36 CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 126 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Allows felony charges for possessing
certain drugs and for thefts under
$950—both currently chargeable
only as misdemeanors—with two prior
drug or two prior theft convictions,
as applicable. Defendants who plead
guilty to felony drug possession and
complete treatment can have charges
dismissed.
• Increases sentences for other
specifed drug and theft crimes.
• Increased prison sentences may
reduce savings that currently fund
mental health and drug treatment
programs, K–12 schools, and crime
victims; any remaining savings may
be used for new felony treatment
program.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S

ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased state criminal justice costs,
likely ranging from several tens of
millions of dollars to the low hundreds
of millions of dollars annually, primarily
due to an increase in the prison
population.
• Increased local criminal justice costs,
likely in the tens of millions of dollars
annually, primarily due to county jail,
community supervision, and court-
mandated mental health and drug
treatment workload.
36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST

BACKGROUND

PUNISHMENT DEPENDS ON SERIOUSNESS OF

CRIME AND CRIMINAL HISTORY
Punishment for Felonies. A felony is
the most serious type of crime. People
can be sentenced to county jail or state
prison for felonies, depending on the
crime and their criminal history. In some
cases, people can be supervised in the
community by a county probation ofcer
instead of serving some or all of their
sentence in jail or prison. This is called
county community supervision. The
length of a sentence mostly depends
on the crime. For example, murder
can be punished by 15 years or more
in prison. In contrast, selling drugs
can be punished by up to fve years in
jail or prison, depending on the drug.

Sentences can also be lengthened due
to details of the crime. For example,
sentences for selling certain drugs
(such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or
methamphetamine) can be lengthened
based on the amount sold.

Punishment for Misdemeanors. A
misdemeanor is a less serious crime.

Examples include assault and drug
possession. People can be sentenced
to county jail, county community
supervision, and/or a fne for
58 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Page 78 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1036 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
misdemeanors. Sentences can be up to
one year in jail.

PROPOSITION 47 REDUCED PUNISHMENTS FOR

SOME THEFT AND DRUG CRIMES
In 2014, Proposition 47 changed some
theft and drug crimes from felonies to
misdemeanors. For example, shoplifting
(stealing items worth $950 or less from
a store) and drug possession generally
became misdemeanors.

PROPOSAL
Proposition 36 makes several key
changes related to punishments for
theft and drug crimes. First, it increases
punishment for some of these crimes.

Second, it creates a new treatment-
focused court process for some drug
possession crimes. Third, it requires
courts to warn people convicted of
selling or providing illegal drugs to others
that they can be charged with murder if
they keep doing so and someone dies.

INCREASES PUNISHMENT FOR SOME THEFT AND

DRUG CRIMES
Proposition 36 increases punishment
for some theft and drug crimes in three
ways:
• Turns Some Misdemeanors Into
Felonies. For example, currently,
theft of items worth $950 or
less is generally a misdemeanor.

Proposition 36 makes this crime a
felony if the person has two or more
past convictions for certain theft
crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary,

CONTINUED
or carjacking). The sentence would
be up to three years in county jail or
state prison. These changes undo
some of the punishment reductions
in Proposition 47.
• Lengthens Some Felony Sentences.

For example, Proposition 36 allows
felony sentences for theft or damage
of property to be lengthened by
up to three years if three or more
people committed the crime
together.
• Requires Some Felonies Be Served
in Prison. For example, as discussed
above, sentences for selling certain
drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin,
cocaine, or methamphetamine) can
be lengthened based on the amount
sold. Currently, these sentences are
served in county jail or state prison
depending on the person’s criminal
history. Proposition 36 generally
requires these sentences be served
in prison.

CREATES NEW COURT PROCESS FOR SOME

DRUG POSSESSION CRIMES
Proposition 36 allows people who
possess illegal drugs to be charged
with a “treatment-mandated felony,”
instead of a misdemeanor, in some
cases. Specifcally, this applies to
people who (1) possess certain drugs
(such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or
methamphetamine) and (2) have two
or more past convictions for some drug
crimes (such as possessing or selling
drugs). These people would generally
36 For the full text of Proposition 36, see page 126. Analysis | 59

Page 79 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1037 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR 36 CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
get treatment, such as mental health
or drug treatment. Those who fnish
treatment would have their charges
dismissed. Those who do not fnish
treatment could serve up to three years
in state prison. This change undoes
some of the punishment reductions in
Proposition 47.

REQUIRES WARNING OF POSSIBLE MURDER

CHARGES FOR SELLING OR PROVIDING DRUGS
Proposition 36 requires courts to warn
people that they could be charged with
murder if they sell or provide illegal
drugs that kill someone. This warning
would be given to people convicted
of selling or providing certain drugs
(such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and
methamphetamine). This could make it
more likely for them to be convicted of
murder if they later sell or provide illegal
drugs to someone who dies.

FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 36 would have various
fscal efects on the state and local
governments. The size of these efects
would depend on uncertain factors,
such as what decisions local prosecutors
would make.

Increases State Criminal Justice Costs.

Proposition 36 would increase state
criminal justice costs in two main ways.
• Increase in State Prison Population.

It would require some people who
now serve their sentences at the
county level to serve them in state

CONTINUED
prison. Also, it lengthens some
prison sentences. In total, the prison
population could increase by around
a few thousand people. (There are
about 90,000 people in prison now.)
• Increase in State Court Workload.

This is because felonies usually
take more time to resolve than
misdemeanors. Also, treatment-
mandated felonies would increase
court workload.

In total, Proposition 36 would increase
state criminal justice costs, likely
ranging from several tens of millions of
dollars to the low hundreds of millions
of dollars each year (annually). This
amount is less than one-half of 1 percent
of the state’s total General Fund budget.
(The General Fund is the account
the state uses to pay for most public
services, including education, health
care, and prisons.)
Increases Local Criminal Justice Costs.

Proposition 36 would increase local
criminal justice costs in two main ways.
• Net Increase in County Jail and
Community Supervision Population.

In some ways, Proposition 36 would
reduce the jail and community
supervision population. This is
because some people would go to
state prison instead of the county
level. In other ways, it would
increase this population. This is
because some people would spend
more time in county jail or on
60 | Analysis

Page 80 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1038 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
community supervision. Overall,
Proposition 36 likely would increase
the county population. This increase
could be around a few thousand
people. (There are about 250,000
people at the county level now.)
• Increase in Local Court-Related
Workload. It would also increase
workload for local prosecutors and
public defenders. This is because
felonies usually take more time to
resolve than misdemeanors. Also,
treatment-mandated felonies would
create workload for some county
agencies (such as probation or
behavioral health departments).

In total, Proposition 36 would increase
local criminal justice costs, likely by
tens of millions of dollars annually.

Reduces Amount State Must Spend on
Certain Services. Proposition 47 created
a process in which the estimated state
savings from its punishment reductions
must be spent on mental health and
drug treatment, school truancy and
dropout prevention, and victim services.

These estimated savings totaled

CONTINUED
$95 million last year. By undoing parts of
Proposition 47, Proposition 36 reduces
the state savings from Proposition 47.

This would reduce the amount the state
must spend on mental health and drug
treatment, school truancy and dropout
prevention, and victim services. This
reduction likely would be in the low tens
of millions of dollars annually.

Other Fiscal Impacts. Proposition 36
could have other fscal efects on
the state and local governments. For
example, if the increased punishments
or mandated treatment reduce crime,
some state and local criminal justice
costs could be avoided. However, it is
unknown if these or other efects would
occur.

Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.

Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
36 For the full text of Proposition 36, see page 126. Analysis | 61

Page 81 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1039 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITION ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR 36 CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 36 ★
YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER LAWS TO MAKE OUR

COMMUNITIES SAFER AND HOLD REPEAT CRIMINALS

ACCOUNTABLE
California is sufering from an explosion in crime and the trafcking of deadly hard drugs like fentanyl. Prop. 36 will fx the mess our politicians have ignored for far too long. It is a balanced approach that corrects loopholes in state law that criminals exploit to avoid accountability for fentanyl trafcking and repeat retail theft.

YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER LAWS TO STOP “SMASH-
AND-GRAB” THEFTS
The explosion in retail theft has caused stores across
California to raise prices, lock up items, and close their doors. Prop. 36 increases penalties for smash-and-grab
crimes when three or more people act together to commit theft. It also allows prosecutors to fle felony charges if a defendant has two or more prior theft convictions.
“California needs Prop. 36’s tougher laws against smash- and-grab thefts so we can keep small businesses open in every community. ”—Robert Rivinius, Executive Director, Family Business Association of California
YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER PROSECUTION OF SERIAL

THIEVES
Under current California law, thieves can get away with the equivalent of a TRAFFIC TICKET if the value of items stolen in one instance is $950 or less. That means someone can steal an UNLIMITED amount—so long as each individual
crime is not over $950—and likely avoid jail time and
even arrest.
“Prop. 36 will allow prosecutors to combine the value of items stolen from multiple thefts and increase accountability for serial thieves. ”—Mike Hestrin, Riverside County District Attorney
YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER PENALTIES FOR FENTANYL

TRAFFICKING
Fentanyl is one of the top killers in California, with more young people dying of drug overdoses than car accidents.

Yet fentanyl is treated less seriously than methamphetamine, heroin, PCP, and cocaine when ofenders are armed with
a frearm. Prop. 36 will close this loophole while increasing penalties for trafcking large quantities and when a trafcker sells drugs to someone who dies as a result.
“Fentanyl has killed too many people, yet trafckers can avoid the consequences. We need Prop. 36 because no
parent should ever have to bury another child killed by fentanyl poisoning. ”—Gina McDonald, Co-Founder, Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Deaths
YES ON PROP. 36: HOLD CAREER CRIMINALS

ACCOUNTABLE AND ENFORCE DRUG TREATMENT

REQUIREMENTS
In California, criminal justice reforms have advanced equity and reduced incarceration rates. But the unintended
consequences of these policies include an epidemic of
drug use, trafcking, and repeat retail theft because the people committing these crimes don’t face any serious
consequences.
“Prop. 36 will make our justice system fair and create
efective tools for holding individuals accountable for their crimes and helping those who sufer from addiction to hard drugs get the necessary treatment to begin new lives. ”—Rev.

Jonathan Moseley, Western Regional Director, National
Action Network Los Angeles
VOTE YES ON PROP. 36 FOR SAFER CALIFORNIA

COMMUNITIES
Prop. 36 will toughen California’s laws on “smash-and-grab” theft and fentanyl trafcking. That’s why small businesses, law enforcement, social justice, crime victims’, and drug survivors’ advocates, along with 900,000 Californians
support Prop. 36.

Read it for yourself at VoteYesProp36.com.

Gregory Totten, Chief Executive Ofcer
California District Attorneys Association
Harriet Salarno, Founder
Crime Victims United
Michael Hedges, President
California Small Business Association
36 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 36 ★ Retail theft and fentanyl are real problems. Californians deserve real solutions. Prop. 36 is a false promise, not a fx.

Prop. 36 will reignite the failed war on drugs, wasting billions on jails and prisons, and slashing crucial funding for crime prevention, treatment, victims, and rehabilitation. That will mean more crime, not less.

Prop. 36 makes simple drug possession a felony, costing taxpayers billions in incarceration without reducing crime.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Ofce concluded the
measure will require the state to spend billions more on prisons over the next several years. That means bigger cuts to schools, healthcare, and other essential services.

The measure is also so poorly drafted that it will simply create confusion in the courts and not lead to higher
penalties in many retail theft cases.

In the last two years, state leaders increased funding for retail theft prosecutions and fentanyl trafcking, leading to more convictions. Lawmakers continue to pass strong new laws targeting retail theft rings, illegal online markets, and fentanyl.

California law already requires felonies for smash-and- grab robberies, drug trafcking, and repeat theft, and
these serious crimes can lead to tough penalties. There is no loophole—under current law, fentanyl trafckers and
repeat thieves can and do spend years behind bars. Prop. 36 doesn’t fx anything—it’s about funding prisons instead of treatment and prevention. This sends California backward, not forward.

Don’t be fooled by false solutions. Vote No on Prop. 36.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, Executive Director
Prosecutors Alliance Action
Don Frazier, Executive Director
Reentry Providers Association of California
David Guizar, Co-Founder
Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
62 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

Page 82 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1040 of 1052 ends

PROPOSITIONALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
36 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 36 ★
VOTE NO ON PROP. 36! THIS IS A WASTEFUL APPROACH
THAT MAKES CALIFORNIA LESS SAFE. PROP. 36 is an
extreme measure that will waste $750 million in taxpayer dollars; cut funding from mental health, drug treatment, and rehabilitation programs; and do nothing to make us safer.

PROPOSITION 36 IS THE WRONG ANSWER. We must
have an all-of-the-above approach to stop fentanyl use
and improve public safety, but PROP. 36 is the opposite of that. This is a one-size-fts-all prison-frst approach. It will lock up people who are not a danger, slash desperately needed money from proven crime prevention and treatment programs, and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions more
on prisons.

PROP. 36 IS TOO EXTREME. Prop. 36 is so extreme that
stealing a candy bar could lead to felony charges. It is a gross overreach that brings back 1980s “drug war” style tactics that packed our state prisons with people convicted of low- level drug ofenses, harming public safety and damaging
families and communities.

We must address persistent problems like theft and fentanyl, but we must use solutions that work and are targeted at the actual issue, instead of the scattershot failed solutions of the past. By making simple drug possession a felony, this measure will send thousands into state prison, drive up prison costs, and slash money for local safety programs. That will make crime worse, not better.

PROP. 36 STRIPS MONEY FROM CRIME VICTIMS,
REHABILITATION, AND MENTAL HEALTH. Prop. 36 will
strip millions away from dedicated funding that is spent on rehabilitation and services for crime victims, and it will expand the state prisons budget instead.

Local public safety programs that are working with law
enforcement to prevent crime and stop people from cycling in and out of jails will LOSE funding if Prop. 36 passes.

These include efective recidivism reduction programs that get people struggling with mental health and addiction of the streets and into treatment, as well as trauma recovery centers for crime victims and programs providing truancy and dropout prevention for at-risk youth. These programs have a proven track record of stopping crime. We need
MORE of these programs, working hand-in-hand with law
enforcement, not less. This measure only locks more people up in state prison.

PROPOSITION 36 IS BEING PUSHED BY MAGA-
REPUBLICANS. Don’t be fooled. Law enforcement leaders,
crime victims, and rehabilitation experts oppose Prop. 36 because it slashes money for public safety, victims, and treatment programs that stop repeat ofending.

EXPERTS ON CRIME, SPENDING, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AGREE: Prop. 36 will NOT make our communities safer.

Prop. 36 WILL waste hundreds of millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars on methods that are proven to be inefcient and
inefective.

Voting for Prop. 36 would be a vote to cut money for
treatment and victims and waste taxpayer dollars. Voting NO on Prop. 36 maintains serious penalties for drug trafcking and organized crime, and protects dedicated funding
for treatment, crime prevention, and rehabilitation that successfully reduce crime and recidivism.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 36
More info: StopProp36.com
Diana Becton, District Attorney
Contra Costa County
William Lansdowne, Police Chief (ret.)
City of San Diego
Jess Nichol, Victim Advocate
Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 36 ★
YES ON PROP. 36: BALANCED, RESPONSIBLE SOLUTIONS

TO RISING CRIME
California has a serious crime problem, and the politicians have failed to fx it. Prop. 36 is a tailored reform focused on the root causes of rising crime: • Repeat retail theft • Fentanyl trafcking • Drug addiction without incentives for treatment
PROP. 36: TARGETED RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA’S CRIME
CRISIS
Prop. 36 increases penalties for smash-and-grab theft and serial thieves who victimize businesses repeatedly. No
one will go to prison for “stealing a candy bar,” and judges are given discretion to assess the severity of crimes for sentencing. Prop. 36 won’t result in over-incarceration.

PROP. 36: SMART APPROACH TO TREATING DRUG

ADDICTION
Prop. 36 does not automatically lock up drug users. Instead, it restores drug courts, providing ofenders who’ve been convicted three times with incentives to complete drug
treatment.

PROP. 36: SAVINGS FOR CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS
California small businesses and stores lost nearly $9 billion in 2022 from theft. Targeting the small group of criminals who repeatedly steal will result in huge savings for consumers.

Treating addiction is a smart way to address illegal drug use and overdoses that cost California $60 billion annually for opioids alone, according to the CDC.

PROP. 36: TOUGHER PENALTIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY
We shouldn’t let the politicians tell us California’s crime problem doesn’t exist. Prop. 36 is a smart, balanced, and responsible approach of tougher penalties for targeted
crimes and real accountability for public safety.

READ WHY PROP. 36 IS SUPPORTED BY DEMOCRATS

AND REPUBLICANS, SMALL BUSINESSES, MAYORS,
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND VICTIMS’ GROUPS, AND LAW

ENFORCEMENT
VoteYesProp36.com
Robert Rivinius, Executive Director
Family Business Association of California
Jay King, President
California Black Chamber of Commerce
Greg Van Dyke, President
California Consumer Advocates for Afordability and Safety 36 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 63

Page 83 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1041 of 1052 ends

2024 Cal Cities Supported Propositions
Proposition 4
Safe Drinking Water and
Wildfire Prevention,
Drought Preparedness,
and Clean Air Bond Act
Proposition 5
Californians for Safe and
Affordable Communities
Proposition 36
The Homeless, Drug
Addiction and Theft
Reduction Act
Proponents Environmental Groups,
CALFIRE Firefighters,
Clean Water Action,
National Wildlife
Federation, Senator Ben
Allen
Non Profit Housing of
Northern CA, CPF,
League of Women Voters
California District Attorneys
Crime Victims United,
California Small Business
Association
Committee
Name/Cash
on Hand as
of July 31
Yes on Prop 4 Committee
to Support Safe Drinking
Water and Wildlife
Prevention
COH: N/A
Non-Profit Housing of
Northern CA Action Fund
(as of 7/31)
COH: N/A
Californians for Safer
Communities, Sponsored
by Golden State
Communities)
COH: $103, 565
Website CASafeCommunities.com
Largest
Proponent
Contributions
Commitments
CPF
Chan Zuckerberg ($3mill)
United Way LA (250K)
Alliance for Jobs ($100K)
Walmart ($2.5 million)
Target ($1 million)
Home Depot ($1million)
Taylor Fresh Foods ($500k)
In N Out ($500k)
Lead
Consultants
RALLY
Wearerally.com
Fiona Hutton and
Associations conducting
local government and
business outreach.

Pascal Roth (earned
media)
Spectrum Campaigns
Spectrumcampaigns.com
Swing Strategies
Swingstrat.com
Elevate Public Affairs
(media)
Opponent
Committee/
Cash on
Hand as of
July 31
None at this time No on Proposition 5
(Protect Local Taxpayers,
Sponsored by California
Homeowners, Businesses
and Taxpayers)
COH: $33k
Committee to Protect
Public Safety, Sponsored
by Action for Safety and
Justice, No on Prop 36
COH: $103,000
Largest
Opponent
Contributions
California Business
Roundtable $1.87 million
ACLU of Northern CA
$100,000
Last Polling FM3 Currently conducting David Binder Research early August
Mike Baselice
Draft Voter Guide: Public Display - Official Voter Information Guide :: California Secretary of State

Page 84 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1042 of 1052 ends

2024 Cal Cities Supported Propositions
Created 8/4/24

Page 85 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1043 of 1052 ends

Retail Theft Package
and Proposition 36

Recently, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a 10-bill package addressing retail theft. The table below compares Proposition 36 — the ballot initiative sponsored by the District Attorneys that would make changes to Proposition 47 — with the retail theft package signed by the Governor.

PROVISION PROPOSITION 36 LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE
(NO AMENDMENTS TO
PROPOSITION 47)

RELEVANT BILL

NUMBERS
Fentanyl
Fentanyl
possession with
firearm
Adds to list of
crimes with
penalties of 2, 3, or
4 years in prison.

Not in package.

Fentanyl
increasing
penalties
Increases penalties
from 2 to 20 years
depending on the
amount.

Not in package.

Treatment
mandated
felony
Creates a new
crime for hard drug
possession with
tiered penalties up
to 25 years.

Not in package.

Retail Theft
Aggregation Provides that any
case involving one
or more acts of
theft or shoplifting
may be
aggregated into a
single count or
charge.

Not in package.

Auto theft Does not address
this issue.

Closes the loophole
under existing law
regarding locked cars.

SB 905 (Wiener)
Cargo theft Does not address
this issue.

Adds cargo theft to the
Regional Property Crime
Task Force operated by
the CHP.

AB 1972 (Alanis)
Fencing Does not address
this issue.

Expands existing law for
online marketplaces to
report high-volume sellers
to law enforcement.

SB 1144 (Skinner)
Fires Does not address
this issue.

Makes it a factor in
aggravation if an offense
SB 1242 (Min)

Page 86 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1044 of 1052 ends

PROVISION PROPOSITION 36 LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE
(NO AMENDMENTS TO
PROPOSITION 47)

RELEVANT BILL

NUMBERS
was carried out in a
merchant’s premises to
commit retail theft.

Increased
penalties
Increases penalty
enhancements for
property crimes for
up to 4 years and
allows the court to
impose
enhancements
with another single
count.

Increases penalty
enhancements for resale
of property or stolen
property in the
commission of a felony for
up to 4 years and allows
the court to impose
enhancements with
another single count. No
changes to Proposition

47. AB 1960 (Rivas)*;
SB 1416
(Newman)

Multi-
jurisdictional
offenses
Does not address
this issue.

Allows local jurisdictions to
file charges that deal with
offenses across county
lines.

AB 1779 (Irwin)
Organized retail
theft
Several provisions
related to acting in
concert and
increasing
penalties for
organized retail
theft. However, it
does not address
the sunset date of
the statute. (Does
not amend the
same code section
as the legislative
bills).

Removes the sunset
clause on the organized
retail theft statute.

AB 1802 (Jones-
Sawyer);
SB 982 (Wahab)
Police ability to
arrest
Does not address
this issue.

Provides that under
certain circumstances
police can arrest without
a warrant.

AB 2943 (Zbur)
Probation Does not address
this issue.

Provides that the term of
probation for shoplifting
or petty theft would be
two years.

AB 2943 (Zbur)
Repeat
offenders
An offender with
two prior
convictions of
petty theft or
shoplifting can be
Creates a new crime for
shoplifting which can be
charged as a felony but
does not change the
threshold amount of $950.

AB 2943 (Zbur)

Page 87 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1045 of 1052 ends

PROVISION PROPOSITION 36 LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE
(NO AMENDMENTS TO
PROPOSITION 47)

RELEVANT BILL

NUMBERS
charged with a
felony regardless of
value. Amends
Proposition 47.

Restraining
orders
Does not address
this issue.

Creates the Retail Theft
Restraining Order for
repeated attempts of
shoplifting which can be
requested by city
attorneys, retailers, or
district attorneys.

AB 3209
(Berman)
Retailers –
nuisance
action
Does not address
this issue.

Prohibits local
government and law
enforcement from
threatening or filing
nuisance complaints
against retailers for
reporting crime.

AB 2943 (Zbur)

*AB 1960 (Rivas) is currently pending on the Governor’s desk.

Page 88 of 88 ends

17.A

Page 1046 of 1052 ends

City of Hemet
City Council Meeting

STAFF REPORT

Meeting: City Council Meeting - Oct 08 2024
Department: City Attorney
Submitted by: Mark Prestwich, City Manager
Steven Graham, City Attorney;

☐ Receive and File ☐ Consent Calendar ☒ Business Item ☐ Public Hearing

TITLE:

An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Hemet, California, Adding Sections 53-10 To The Hemet Municipal Code Prohibiting Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport Of Homeless Persons

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

Introduce the Ordinance for first reading by title only, waive full reading, of an Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Hemet, California, Adding Sections 53-10 To The Hemet Municipal Code Prohibiting Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport Of Homeless Persons, and order the City Clerk to place the Ordinance on the consent calendar for the next regular meeting of the City Council for second reading and adoption.

BACKGROUND:

In June of 2024, the City of Santa Cruz accused the Hanford Police Department (a city several hours away from Santa Cruz) of abandoning a disabled homeless woman in their city without warning. The incident occurred when Hanford officers allegedly dropped the woman at a Santa Cruz shelter, even though she had no connections in the City, including no family, friends, or even confirmation that shelter space was available. Santa Cruz officials, including Mayor Fred Keeley, expressed concerns that this may not have been the first time Hanford engaged in such practices. In response, the City of Hanford claimed the woman had requested relocation to Santa Cruz, after researching shelters, and denied any misconduct.

This incident highlights the ongoing issue of government agencies transporting homeless individuals to other jurisdictions, often referred to as "dumping." While Hanford framed it as a response to the individual’s request, Santa Cruz viewed it as violating inter-jurisdictional responsibility. The practice raises ethical concerns, as it shifts the burden of care without providing long-term solutions, fueling tensions between communities that are already grappling with homelessness.

Page 1 of 6 ends

17.B

Page 1047 of 1052 ends

ANALYSIS:

The draft ordinance has been brought forward at the request of Mayor Joe Males and aims to prohibit government agencies from transporting homeless individuals to Hemet without proper authorization or arrangements. This ordinance seeks to preserve local resources and ensure that homeless individuals receive care within their originating jurisdictions. It explicitly bans the unsanctioned drop- off of homeless persons lacking a fixed nighttime residence, with exceptions only for verified services such as medical treatment, shelter, or court appointments. Violators can face fines or jail time.

STRATEGIC PLAN INTEGRATION:

N/A

ATTACHMENT(S):

Attachment A - Ordinance Homeless Transport

Page 2 of 6 ends

17.B

Page 1048 of 1052 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2024-xxx

CITY OF HEMET

HEMET, CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-xxx

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTIONS 53-10 TO THE HEMET

MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBTING GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED

UNSANCTIONED TRANSPORT OF HOMELESS PERSONS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEMET DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The adoption of this ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the following, each a separate and independent basis: CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378 (not a project) and Section 15061 (b)(3) (no significant environmental impact).

SECTION 2. Section 53-10 is hereby added to the Hemet Municipal Code to read as follows:

Sec. 53-10 Prohibition of Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons Ordinance.
(a) Purpose and Intent of Section
This section shall be known as the Prohibition of Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons Ordinance. The purposes of this section are to: (1) help preserve the City’s limited homelessness-related resources (including shelter and outreach) for the benefit of individuals residing in the City of Hemet, (2) encourage the appropriate government agencies to provide shelter, care, outreach, and other homelessness-related resources to the persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictions, rather than simply just transporting these individuals to the City of Hemet, and (3) prevent government agencies from engaging in cruel and inhumane treatment of unhoused individuals. (b) Prohibition of Government-Sponsored Unsanctioned Transport of Homeless Persons
(1)No law enforcement officer, agent, or employee of a county, of another city, or of any other governmental entity, when acting in their official capacity, shall transport and drop-off an individual on public property, or private property that is accessible to the public, within the City of Hemet, when the person being

Page 3 of 6 ends

17.B

Page 1049 of 1052 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2024-xxx
transported and dropped-off lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.
(2)A person “lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence” within the meaning of subdivision (a) above when that person:
(A)Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for habitation; or
(B)Lives in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state, and local government programs); or (C)Is exiting an institution where they have resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution. (3) The prohibition contained in subdivision (b)(1) above shall not be interpreted to prohibit the following authorized activities:
(A)Transporting a person to be booked into a County Jail or admitted to a County-designated custody alternative facility (e.g., a County-designated sobering center); or
(B)Transporting a person to be treated at a hospital or other medical facility; or
(C)Transporting a person to reside at a shelter, temporary housing, or permanent housing, when the officer, agent, or employee has independently verified that the individual being transported has already been accepted to reside at the facility; or
(D)Transporting a person to attend a verified appointment with a governmental or non-profit social service provider; or
(E)Transporting a person to attend a verified hearing at the Riverside County Superior Court; or
(F)Any transportation or drop-off activities undertaken by the City of Hemet within the City of Hemet; or
(G)The operations of a governmental provider of public
transportation, such as the Riverside Transit Agency.
(c) Penalty

Page 4 of 6 ends

17.B

Page 1050 of 1052 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2024-xxx
Any person causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, suffering or concealing a violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may, in the discretion of the city attorney, be prosecuted as a misdemeanor and upon conviction be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or imprisonment in the city or county jail for a period of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The city attorney, in his or her sound discretion, may prosecute a violation of this section as an infraction, rather than a misdemeanor, or reduce or agree to the reduction of a previously filed misdemeanor to an infraction. Any person convicted of an infraction under this Code shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100.00 for the first violation, a fine not exceeding $200.00 for a second violation within one year, and a fine not exceeding $500.00 for a third violation within one year. A fourth violation of this section within one year shall be charged as a misdemeanor and may not be reduced to an infraction.

SECTION 3. Severability: If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from its passage by the City Council of the City of Hemet.

SECTION 5. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall publish this Ordinance in the manner required by law.

INTRODUCED at the regular meeting of the Hemet City Council on October ___, 2024 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of _________________, 2024. ______________________________
Joe Males, Mayor
ATTEST:

Page 5 of 6 ends

17.B

Page 1051 of 1052 ends

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2024-xxx
____________________________
John Paul Maier, City Clerk

Page 6 of 6 ends

17.B

Page 1052 of 1052 ends

Hemet City CouncilOctober 8, 2024

Hemet City Council
October 8, 2024