What are Ballot Propositions?
Ballot initiatives are a form of direct democracy and part of the California Constitution. Some are a Constitutional Amendment that will directly edit or add to the California Constitution and will bind all state officials including the California Supreme Court to follow them. Legislative Statutes are the same as a law passed by the state legislature and may not conflict with the California Constitution.
A proposal for an initiative is filed with the Secretary of State of California. When it is approved by meeting legal guidelines, supporters must gather enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot. The proposition numbers represent the order they were submitted to the state, but only the ones with enough signatures made it to the ballot.
Things to Consider
Is this a Constitutional Amendment or a Legislative Statute?
What is the issue that this proposition will address and do you think the proposition will achieve an outcome that meets your approval?
Why is this proposition being put before the voters to vote upon instead of being addressed by the elected governing body?
Who sponsored this proposition and why?
Who are the supporters and who are the opponents, and what is their specific interest in this proposition?
State Guide to Propositions - This is the official voter guide from the state with the details of each proposition.
Sonoma County Guide to Propositions - This is the official voter guide from the county with the details of each proposition.
Click on the proposition links to be taken to the State Guide page for each proposition for more detailed information.
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.
Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments.
Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California
Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond.
Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements.
Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes.
Supporters: California Professional
Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance
ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work).
Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually.
Supporters: Assembly member Lori Wilson
Opponents: None submitted
RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.
Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually.
Supporters: None submitted
Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association
EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties.
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.
Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA
Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; Tenants Together
Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce
RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs.
Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles
Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta
PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.
Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects.
Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA
Opponents: None submitted
ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.
Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California
Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice.
They are like Legislative Statutes, but only apply in Sonoma County.
Click on the proposition links to go to the County Voter Guide PDF with full details on each proposition.
To improve the health and well-being of Sonoma County children, including: Increasing access to child care and early childhood education to start kindergarten ready; increasing access to vital children’s preventive health care and mental health services; preventing child abuse/neglect; and prioritizing children impacted by homelessness and trauma, shall Sonoma County establish a 1⁄4-cent sales tax, providing $30,000,000 annually, until ended by voters, subject to independent audits and review by an oversight commission?
Supporters: Jose E Morales, MD-MPH Pediatric Physcian SANTA ROSA METRO CHAMBER Ananda Sweet, Interim CEO Kirstyne Lange President, NAACP Sonoma Sonu Chandi Chandi Hospitality Group, Owner and CEO COMMUNITY CHILD CARE COUNCIL OF SONOMA COUNTY (4Cs) Melanie Dodson, CEO
Opponents: None submitted
SONOMA COUNTY PROHIBITION ON CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Should the County Code be amended to prohibit, outside of the Coastal Zone, farms and other animal production operations that meet the definition of “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” (CAFOs), as defined by federal regulations, require phase out of existing CAFOs over three years, authorize daily financial penalties for violations, and require, among other things, the Agricultural Commissioner to create a job retraining program for CAFO workers?
Supporters: Samantha Eachus Sebastopol Farm Worker Christopher Green Executive Director, Animal Legal Defense Fund Brenda Forsythe, Ph.D., D.V.M. Veterinarian CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICS Patricia M Clary, Executive Director Jerry Bernhaut Environmental Attorney, California River Watch
Opponents: SONOMA COUNTY FARM BUREAU Doug Beretta, Organic Farmer/Board President CLOVER SONOMA Michael Benedetti, Senior Director of Sustainability SONOMA COUNTY CONSERVATION ACTION Neal Fishman, President SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS David Rabbitt, Chair of the Board SANTA ROSA METRO CHAMBER Peter Rumble, CEO
Sonoma County Library
2/3 (Two-Thirds) Needed to Pass
To maintain and enhance Sonoma County Library services such as: children’s/teen books, summer reading programs, and homework help; career services/computer labs; book/digital/historical collections; keeping qualified librarians; senior services; disabled access; and maintaining hours seven days a week; shall the Sonoma County Library measure be adopted, renewing the current 1/8¢ sales tax, providing $18,000,000 annually, until ended by voters, with independent auditing, citizen oversight, requiring all funds going to the Sonoma County Library, and no money for Sacramento?
Supporters:
Deborah Doyle
Chair, Sonoma County Library Commission
Lynn C. Woolsey
Congresswoman (Retired)
Thomas A. Haeuser
Tax payer
Dr. Angélica Garcia
Herman J. Hernandez
Founder, Los Cien
Opponents:
David Little
Former Member, Oversight Committee
Walt Frazer
Former Member, Oversight Committee
They are like Legislative Statutes, but only apply in Santa Rosa.
Click on the proposition links to go to the County Voter Guide PDF with full details on each proposition.
To maintain locally controlled funding for services, such as repairing potholes/maintaining streets; maintaining youth violence prevention, drug/gang intervention programs; keeping city parks clean safe/well maintained; and improving wildfire prevention/preparedness, shall City of Santa Rosa’s general business tax measure be adopted increasing the maximum tax, adjusting rates and taxing short-term rental businesses, as described in the voter pamphlet, providing $3,000,000 annually, until ended by voters, with all funds staying local?
Supporters: Jose E Morales, MD-MPH Pediatric Physcian SANTA ROSA METRO CHAMBER Ananda Sweet, Interim CEO Kirstyne Lange President, NAACP Sonoma Sonu Chandi Chandi Hospitality Group, Owner and CEO COMMUNITY CHILD CARE COUNCIL OF SONOMA COUNTY (4Cs) Melanie Dodson, CEO
Opponents: None submitted
To maintain locally controlled funding for services, such as keeping city parks clean safe/well maintained, repairing potholes and maintaining streets, enhancing senior/youth programs, and for general government use, shall City of Santa Rosa’s measure be adopted increasing the existing transient occupancy tax charged to hotel, motel and lodging guests by 2%, until ended by voters, providing $1,200,000 annually and all funds staying local?
Supporters: Natalie Rogers Mayor, City of Santa Rosa
Opponents: NO ON EE AND FF Eric Fraser, Chair Adina Flores