Type: Bond Issue/Legislative Statute

What It Proposes: 

• Authorizes the state to borrow a total of $10 billion ( $8.5 billion for K-12 schools, including charter schools, and $1.5 billion for community colleges) towards repair, modernization and construction of new facilities. 
• Provisions for funds to be allocated towards reducing lead levels in the water at public school sites; providing charter school facilities; and vocational training program facilities. 
• Implements required transparency and accountability measures that include: public hearings held by school and community college district governing boards to garner public input before approval of projects and independent performance audits with results posted to the websites of applicable recipients of these funds.
• Increases the share of costs that the state would pay for projects in school districts with lower property values and higher share of students from low income households, who are English learners or foster youth. For these districts, the state’s share would increase from 50% to as much as 55% for new construction projects and 60% up to 65% for renovation projects. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You approve issuing $10 billion in bonds to build and modernize public education buildings.

A “No” Vote means: You oppose the issuance of the bonds and the proposed funding for education facilities.

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes.

 

Rebel’s Rationale: This is complicated as the proposition reveals, and perpetuates the ills and harms of systemic inequities due to structural racism, where things like redlining policies and chronic underinvestment have rendered particular neighborhood property tax values disproportionately lower than others, negatively impacting the quality of public services available to our communities. Yes, it requires us to make a decision from between a rock and a hard place –– asking ourselves, based on the options that we are confronted with, what would be the harm reduction approach? 

 

Having rejected a $15 billion school bond in March 2020, this is the second time in 5 years that voters are being asked to allow the state to take on debt for school infrastructure. The last time that voters approved a bond for K–12 and community college infrastructure projects was in 2016 through Prop. 51, which allowed the state to sell $9 billion in bonds. You might ask, why are voters always presented with this question about bonds for school infrastructure? Well, that is because California relies almost entirely on state and local bonds to fund these projects as it does not have a permanent funding source for this. 

 

When it comes to facilities projects for schools, the state and districts usually split the costs and because the state funds are allocated in the form of matching grants, school districts would need to raise funds in order to apply for the state match, and since districts usually pay for their portion through local bonds, districts would likely need to pass a local bond measure. This scheme is concerning because in practice, higher wealth districts have an advantage –– not only do districts that can raise a lot of money locally get more money from the state, lower-wealth districts may not easily raise the funds to even  qualify for the matching funds. In fact, advocates and representatives of lower-wealth districts believe the funding formula favors districts that can raise money more easily and fear that they will not be able to raise the matching funds to access this important revenue source. While Prop. 2 would allow for districts unable to raise a certain amount to apply for additional funding, it would not equitably address the dire needs of lower wealth schools that have fallen into disrepair. While the state has increased its share of costs for new construction and renovations for schools in districts with lower property values or lower incomes, it does so only minimally and maintains a funding formula, which fails to equitably address the needs of these schools and its students. Some opponents believe that the state’s sliding scale for matching funds should be wider, with lower-income districts receiving a greater share of the funds. In addition to the call to replace the current universal matching system for modernization funds with a sliding scale, another solution posed is to increase supplemental hardship funding to address the inequities issues.

 

This all sounds like we should advocate for a no vote, right? Well, not quite. The fact of the matter is, the need is dire. As funds from the pot to support these repairs dries up, the Public Policy Institute of California found that 38% of students statewide go to schools that do not meet minimum facility standards. Studies show that this impacts things like student health, learning, and engagement, which are all important for student success. Because the state has not issued a bond since 2016, school modernization needs like repairing leaky roofs, updating HVAC systems, upgrading electrical systems and the like are considerable across the state, especially for schools in low-income communities which have historically had less access to resources for such projects. It is the schools in our communities that have a pressing need for these resources, no matter how inequitably they are distributed –– at this moment, something is better than nothing. 

 

So, while advocates from low-income districts are unhappy with the distribution formula and note that it is discriminatory in practice, they are reluctantly supporting this measure, as the alternative certainly leaves no potential for state funding. It’s actually devastating. So, it seems that the less harmful approach would be to pass this bond measure so that our schools can get some funding to try to stop the bleeding in a sense, AND join the fight in Sacramento to amend the funding structure to one that is more equitable and supports the dignity, wellbeing and achievement of the upcoming generation. We are encouraged by the work of groups like Public Advocates that are calling out the discriminatory nature of this bond and exploring ways to ensure that our communities receive their just due on this issue. 

 

Again, this is a reluctant, but crucial YES recommendation, as the alternative will only drive more suffering for our children. Dismantling systemic inequities and righting the wrongs of racist policies are long term fights that require fierce advocacy, education and continued engagement with policy makers and while we engage in those battles, we must also work to figure out how to support our communities through the hardships of this moment.   

Proposition 3: Constitutional Right to Marriage

 

Type: Legislatively Referred Constitutional Amendment

What It Proposes: 

• Known as the “Freedom to Marry” ballot measure” 
• Amend the California Constitution to recognize the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. 
• Remove the outdated, discriminatory language in the Constitution, which states that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

A “Yes” Vote means: You approve repealing the 2008 Prop. 8 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman AND declaring that the “right to marry is a fundamental right” in the California Constitution.

 

A “No” Vote means: You oppose repealing Prop.8 and therefore would keep the current language that describes marriage as only between a man and woman in the California Constitution. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale: This one is simple. Vote yes if you believe that equity, justice, and dignity is for everyone.  Prop. 3 would enshrine the right to marry for every Californian –– including same-sex and interracial couple into the California constitution. This would therefore repeal Prop. 8 (2008).  Although the current language on the books is effectively void because of the 2015 landmark Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, this proposition seeks to take a proactive step to protect everyone’s freedom to marry in California. Considering the current make-up of SCOTUS and their demonstrated disregard for constitutionally protected fundamental rights, see overturning of Roe v. Wade –– our fundamental right to determine our reproductive destiny, we cannot take our freedoms for granted. In this current environment, where our basic human dignity is under attack by right wing Christian Nationalists and a hostile Supreme Court, it is important that CA affirms the dignity and humanity of its citizens by safeguarding the rights and entitlements that come with marriage for everyone. 

 

Prop. 3 will not change any laws related to the number of people in a marriage, the age requirement for marriage or defy any rights or religious exemptions of clergy. It simply will align our state constitution with current federal protections for the freedom to marry and takes a proactive step to ensure that in the event that SCOTUS strikes down its own precedent (again), this freedom is protected in our state. We all deserve the freedom to build; the freedom to be; the freedom to love; and the freedom to marry!

 

Proposition 4: Climate Bond – Bond for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks

Type: Bond Issue/Legislative Statute

What It Proposes: 

• Allows the state to borrow $10 billion to support various environmental and climate projects, including safe drinking water and water resilience, wildfire prevention and extreme heat mitigation, protection of natural and coastal lands, and investments in agriculture. 
• Implements oversight and accountability measures that include: 1.) list of all program and project expenditures that outlines specified information like, status, benefits to residents, and amount of funding,  published in downloadable format on the Natural Resources Agency website; 2.) independent audits; and reporting of expenditures. 
• Prioritizes projects that benefit vulnerable or disadvantaged communities by requiring that 40 percent of total funds be used for projects that meaningfully and directly benefit these communities. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You approve issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund water infrastructure projects, environmental protection projects, state and local parks, energy projects, and flood protections. 

 

A “No” Vote means: You oppose California taking on this debt to fund the various environmental and climate projects. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale:  We recommend a yes vote on this measure as it would fund various programs to improve climate-related challenges and enhance public health and safety which directly impacts our communities. It makes much needed investments that address our most urgent climate needs before the damage becomes too costly. 

 

A significant amount of these funds would go towards drinking water and water resilience initiatives, which would provide safe, reliable drinking water, boosting supplies and ensuring our systems’ ability to withstand, prepare for and recover from disasters. As human beings, we have the human right to clean water that is accessible and it should not be the case anywhere, let alone in the state with the 5th largest economy in the world, that residents do not have access to clean water. Meaning that folks in communities across the state can not drink, cook or bathe with the water that comes out of their faucets. 

 

BWW recently published a water guide that found, in 2023, more than 1 million California residents were exposed to unsafe drinking water from their taps, and over 2.5 million were at a high risk of their water bill being unaffordable to them. It further confirms what we know, that these burdens affect communities of color and low-income communities disproportionately, stating that, in Los Angeles itself, South Los Angeles and its primarily Black and Brown people are particularly affected. Whatsmore, if you are concerned about reproductive justice, then you should be concerned about clean water. Did you know that contaminants in drinking water have been linked to adverse birth outcomes, like miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight and other pregnancy complications. Where Black mamas and birthing people in California are 3 to 4 times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes and suffer disproportionately from pregnancy complications, lack of access to clean water has devastating implications for the health and safety of our mamas, birthing people, their children and families. 

 

Prop. 4 calls for and builds in meaningful provisions grounded in equity, recognizing the devastating impacts of systemic racism and the resulting inequities on our communities’ health outcomes.

 

Opponents argue that these are not the kind of projects that bonds should be used for, because not all of the projects are long term enough. The fact of the matter is, this bond proposal is really quite expansive and works to not only mitigate harms that have resulted from underinvestment in various climate issues, it offsets recent budget cuts,  proposes resilience and preventative measures to ensure our state is both able to recover from and withstand disasters but also work to keep preventable ones from happening. These are the kinds of investments that keep our communities safer, stronger and healthier for years to come.  

 

Finally, we definitely need our government to be accountable, and Prop. 4 articulates tangible oversight and accountability measures to ensure the funds are used in a way that meaningfully responds to the needs of our communities. The impacts of our lived environment on our health outcomes are clear, and Proposition 4 would make the necessary investments in responsive solutions to meet the urgency of this moment and protect our communities.  

 

To learn more about access to water and the intersection with Reproductive Justice, check out BWW’s Water guide by scanning the QR Code : 

Proposition 5: 55% Vote for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure Bonds 

Type: Legislatively Referred Constitutional Amendment

What It Proposes: 

• Makes it easier for local governments to borrow money for affordable housing and some other public infrastructure projects, like water, roads and fire protection, by lowering the voter approval requirement from two-thirds to 55%. 
• Allows local governments to assess property taxes above 1% to repay affordable housing and infrastructure bonds if approved by 55% of voters instead of current two-thirds approval requirement.
• Establishes accountability standards by requiring annual, independent audits of the use of funds and creating citizen oversight committees to evaluate spending. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You approve lowering the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local bond measures to fund affordable housing projects and public infrastructure. 

A “No” Vote means: You would keep the current two-thirds threshold for voter approval of these bonds, thus making it more challenging for local governments to move forward on local service and development projects using public funds.

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

Rebel’s Rationale:  The urgent need for affordable housing in our state can not be overstated. Our state is in a crisis and smart, swift solutions that meet this current moment are necessary. Housing is a basic human right, and everyone is deserving of a safe, affordable  place to call home. For Black folks, especially Black women in California, this is not the reality. Black women in California are especially impacted by the high cost of housing. A recent Gender Equity Policy Institute report found that nearly two-thirds (63%) of Black women living in rentals are rent burdened and 36% are severely rent burdened. Black men were also found to be disproportionately impacted by housing costs, carrying the highest rate of rent burden among men at 56%. Another report by researchers at Berkeley and UCSF found that in 2022, Black folks in California experienced the highest rate of homelessness at five (5) times the state’s average rate and despite making up 6% of the state population, our community accounted for 30% of the overall homeless population. These devastating facts require swift, meaningful and responsive action.

This measure gives our communities more power to choose how to address our unique needs, by shifting decisions about public policy and spending priorities away from state government and into the hands of local voters and taxpayers. If passed, Prop. 5  would make it easier for local governments to issue bonds to develop affordable housing and other projects in their jurisdictions. It would help to develop critical infrastructure needed to support new affordable housing and safe communities. Housing and homelessness is a dire problem in our community and this would help to combat those issues by allowing projects to obtain a more seamless approval and implementation, but with the required strict accountability, oversight, and transparency provisions that ensure our local tax dollars are spent locally to improve our communities.

Note that if Prop. 5 passes, this new threshold would apply to the relevant bonds that are being considered by voters this November and beyond! 

Check out BWW’s Fierce Aunties Housing Justice Campaign to hear the housing stories of Black women in California. Scan the QR Code: 

Proposition 6: End Slavery in Constitution 

Type: Legislatively Referred Constitutional Amendment

What It Proposes: 

• Would end indentured servitude in state prisons, considered one of the last remnants of slavery. 
• Would amend the current language in the state constitution which reads, “Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude except to punish crime.” to read “Slavery and involuntary servitude is prohibited.” 
• Would ban the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from punishing incarcerated people for refusing a work assignment. 
• A companion bill created a voluntary work program in the prison system.

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You approve amending the state constitution so that slavery and involuntary servitude cannot be used as punishment for people who are incarcerated. 

 

A “No” Vote means: Involuntary servitude, would continue in California as punishment for a crime. 

 

 Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes.

 

Rebel’s Rationale: Prop. 6 was one of the 14 California Legislative Black Caucus reparations bill priorities. A recommendation that came out of California’s Reparations Task Force, this measure is one of the expansive approaches that seeks to begin to address and repair the harms of the legacy of slavery, systemic racism and anti-blackness endured by Black Californians, especially the descendants of enslaved people. 

 

California is one of just 16 states that still allows involuntary servitude for incarcerated people. This simply amounts to slavery by another name. Disproportionate surveillance and criminalization of our communities have resulted in our overrepresentation in Prisons and jails, which means that we are disparately impacted by this cruel practice that is sanctioned by our constitution. Currently, 65% of incarcerated people –– disproportionately Black and Latinx –– are forced to work for little to no wage. Imprisoned Californians pave roads, work food service, and even fight fires for 12 to 40 cents an hour and businesses pocket $1 billion a year on labor from incarcerated people. Forced labor assignments are prioritized over rehabilitative courses and activity, so incarcerated folks are not able to choose and refusal to perform these tasks result in punishment. By revising the language, this proposition will allow incarcerated people to exercise more autonomy in shaping their rehabilitation and pursuit of voluntary work experiences during their time in the prison system, restoring a semblance of dignity, recognizing their humanity and doing the moral thing. 

Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage

Type: Initiative Statute

What It Proposes: 

• Aims to increase the state’s minimum wage to $18 per hour. 
• Would raise the overall minimum wage from $16 an hour and adjust it for inflation, fast food workers received a $20 an hour minimum on April 1 and health care workers will eventually get $25 though not until at least Oct. 15. 
• If it passes, all minimum wage workers who earn $16 an hour right now, would see their pay gradually increase by a dollar each year until it reaches $18 on January 1, 2026. 
• Requires larger businesses with more than 25 employees to reach $18 at a faster pace, by the start of 2025. 
• However, if an economic downturn occurs, the Governor has the power to suspend increases twice, which would delay when an $18 minimum wage actually reaches Californians. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You approve increasing the minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026 for all employers and thereafter adjusting the rate annually by increases to the cost of living. 

 

A “No” Vote means: You oppose increasing the minimum wage and vote to keep the current minimum wage of $16, which does not allow for a more livable wage for employees and keeps the future change of wages in the hands of the California Director of Finance. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes.

 

Rebel’s Rationale:  Although this increase is not quite where labor unions would like it to be, this will assist workers with the high cost of living in California. The idea of raising the California minimum wage is both a moral and economic dilemma, but voters have only one reasonable choice. It should be our collective obligation to see that hard-working Californians are earning their fair share of wages. Yet, the leaders of California businesses, both large and small, say increases in the minimum wage from $16 an hour would hurt their bottom lines and the workers themselves. These arguments are intended to confuse and suppress people who are struggling financially, working themselves to the bone while facing the threat of retaliation if they speak up for their interests.  

 

The current minimum wage for a full time worker amounts to barely $33,000 annually. Studies show that for a single person without children to live comfortably in California, they must make around $89,000 annually. Clearly, there is a huge discrepancy between the current hourly wage and a living wage. Factoring in housing costs, studies have found that housing in California’s major metro areas and much of the Central Coast is unaffordable for minimum wage workers. 

 

According to the California Department of Finance, California residents haven’t voted on a proposition to raise the minimum wage since 1996 when the wage was raised to $5.75. In April 2016, the California Legislature passed a bill that raised the minimum wage to $9 in 2017 and implemented a policy to raise the wage each year until it reached $15 in 2023. The bill stated that once the minimum wage reached $15, the state department of finance would decide if the wage should be increased in the following year. In August 2024, the California Director of Finance announced an increase to $16.50 in January 2025. 

 

Additionally, supporters argue that wage increase would help families afford basic needs; would be spent at local businesses and would help reduce low-income Californians’ use of taxpayer-provided/public assistance benefits.  Often called “corporate welfare”, currently minimum wage workers who work full-time don’t make enough to survive without government help. Nearly 40 California cities – including San Francisco, Berkeley, and Emeryville in Northern California- already have local minimum wages higher than the state’s.  A minimum wage of $18 an hour will reduce – although not completely erase- income inequality and improve the standard of living for millions of California workers. 

Proposition 33: Justice for Renters (Costa Hawkins Repeal)

Type: Initiative Statute

What It Proposes: 

• Seeks to prohibit the state from imposing limitations on local governments’ authority to enact and enforce rent control measures. 
• The latest attempt to roll back a state law prevents cities and counties from limiting rents in properties first occupied after February 1, 1995.
•  If passed, it would get rid of a nearly three decade old law, known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, that bans rent control for single-family homes finished after February 1, 1995. 
• Cities and counties would have more power to limit rent increases for incoming and existing tenants, making it harder for landlords to hike up prices. 
• Would also add new language into California law that prohibits the state from limiting how cities and counties expand or maintain rent control. 
• Backed by the Aids Healthcare Foundation and is the 3rd time since 2018 that voters will decide on the issue (similar ballot initiatives, in 2018 and 2020, failed by 19 and 20 points respectively)

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You approve repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which prohibits cities and counties from instituting rent caps or rent control. 

 

A “No” Vote means: The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 will remain in effect and there will be no rent caps or rent control in place.

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale:  As this will help curb landlord’s predatory rental practices, and help make our state a more affordable place to live. 

 

The Costa-hawkins rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), limits local rent control laws in three main ways: (1) rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes; (2) rent control cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995; and (3) rent control laws generally cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in – instead it can only limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters. 

 

Rent control is a necessary  step towards making California a place where everyone can thrive. If Prop 33 passes, local rent control laws would expand in some communities and have many effects on renters, landlords, and rental properties. The most likely effects are: (1) some renters who live in properties covered by rent control would spend less on rent; and (2) some renters would move less often – which would lead to neighborhood stabilization. Additionally, the state would likely save at least tens of millions of dollars annually by incorporating rent control. Prop 33 can prevent renters from being overcharged, requiring them to move less often and prevent unjust rent increases from year to year. Thus, keeping people housed, especially those close to becoming homeless. 

 

Opponents of Prop 33 believe that expanding rent control would exacerbate the housing affordability crisis. They believe that housing under Prop 33 will be more expensive because developers who want to build housing will leave the state of California because it would not incentivize them to build. They also believe that it could reduce home values. Most housing associations, including the California Apartment Association, oppose Prop 33. 

Over half of Californians are rent burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Wage growth has not kept pace with rent increases, and housing costs are driving many people either out of state or become unhoused- thereby adding to the homelessness crisis. Solving the housing crisis requires the state to build more affordable housing; but in the meantime, cities need tools like rent control to keep people housed. 

Proposition 34: Medi-Cal Rx Program Reform

Type: Initiative Statute

What It Proposes: 

• Requires that certain participants in the Medi-Cal Rx program, which provides prescription drug coverage to Medi-Cal recipients, spend at least 98% of their revenues on patient care. 
• Requires certain organizations that use a federal drug discount program to spend at least 98% of those funds on direct patient care. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You want certain health care entities to have to follow new rules about how they spend revenue they earn from a federal drug discount program. Breaking these rules would result in penalties (such as not being able to operate as a health care entity), generally for a ten-year period.

 

A “No” Vote means: You oppose the new rules and do not think that they should go into effect.

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: No. 

Rebel’s Rationale: No, just no. This is a billionaire backed effort, sponsored by the trade group for California’s landlords,that is squarely aimed at silencing AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) over its advocacy for rent control. Prop 34 is an unfortunate use and abuse of the ballot initiative process to retaliate against AHF for its sponsorship of Prop 33 ( rent control in CA), see above, and other pro-renter initiatives ( remember that double edged sword we discussed earlier?).  In an effort to protect their corporate interests, these groups want to strip AHF of its nonprofit status and disrupt its global lifesaving work. They want to teach AHF a lesson for advocating on behalf of vulnerable communities, and also send a signal to other organizations that are fighting for a just and equitable society.  Proponents who put the measure on the ballot say it is meant to go after the Aids Healthcare Foundation, which critics accuse the nonprofit of spending millions on political causes (such as Prop 33) rather than patient care and housing. AHF has called Prop 34 “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” 

 

Outside of this beef not being any of voters’ business, because we certainly have better things to do than be the mules that carry out the vendettas of large corporate interests, this measure creates a dangerous, slippery slope. It sets a dangerous precedent and creates a roadmap on how to misuse the ballot to target organizations that are fighting, using all of the advocacy tools available to them, to benefit our communities. Should this measure pass, rest assured it will not stop at AHF, it will simply add another tool to the toolbox of powerful corporate interests. So, it is a strong NO for us.

Proposition 35: Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services (MCO Tax)

Type: Initiative Statute

What It Proposes: 

• Would authorize a permanent tax on managed care organizations (MCOs), which is set to expire in 2026 and is used to fund various healthcare programs and services.
• Requires funds from the tax to be used only for specified Medi-Cal services including primary and specialty care, family planning,  abortion care and related services; and prescription drugs.  
• Prohibits the state from using the money to replace existing funding sources for health care access and affordable prescription drug programs. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You support making the existing tax on managed care organizations to help fund specified Medi-Cal services permanent and preventing the funds from being used for another purpose.

 

A “No” Vote means: You oppose making the  existing state tax on Managed Care Organization health permanent and leaving it to the legislature to decide whether to continue the tax after it expires in 2027.

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale:  The MCO tax is a provider tax imposed by states on health care services. The burden of the tax falls mostly on providers such as a tax on health plans per number of members served. The initiative’s main supporters, which include the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, say voters should decide if they want to prevent future lawmakers from using money meant for Medi-Cal on other services. With the MCO tax, health insurers agree to be taxed to get a dollar-for-dollar match from the federal government. The tax is projected to generate more than $5 billion next year. California has relied on this tax for decades to offset state general fund spending on Medi-Cal, which some experts say is risky given signals from the federal government that it may stop providing matching funds to the state. Doctors have argued that the money- while it lasts- should be used to increase provider payments. 

 

For the past decade, California lawmakers have steadily restored Medi-Cal services cut during the Great Recession, added new ones, and expanded eligibility to include all low-income Californians. Today, more than 15 million Californians – more than a third of its residents – are enrolled in Medi-Cal, but many doctors say eligibility and benefit expansions have come without commensurate rate increases. As a result, too few providers accept Medi-Cal patients – this especially makes it impossible to tackle long-standing health disparities among marginalized communities. 

 

MCO tax is expected to bring in between $6 and $9 billion by the end of 2026, but analysis by the Legislature Analyst’s Office said the long-term fiscal effects of the measure are uncertain. Implementing the MCO tax allows the state to draw down additional federal funds to pay for Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for poor residents. By supporting making a tax on managed care organizations to help permanently fund Medi-Cal programs will in turn boost permanent funding and protect those funds from being used for another purpose. 

Proposition 36: Felony Charges for Drug and Theft Crimes 

Type: Initiative Statute

What It Proposes: 

• Would roll back Proposition 47, approved by voters in 2014, that turned some felonies – such as possession of small drug amounts and many low level thefts – into misdemeanors. 
• Would raise penalties and sentences for several drug and theft offenses. 
• Would hike up punishments for convicted shoplifters with two or more prior theft-related convictions. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You support raising sentences and penalties for retail theft and fentanyl, increasing incarceration and state investment in prisons, thereby divesting from successful community programs and contributing to the prison industrial complex.

 

A “No” Vote means: You will not allow misdemeanor charges to be upgraded to felony charges and keep the sentences for certain drug and theft crimes from becoming harder and more disproportionate for marginalized offenders.

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: No.

 

Rebel’s Rationale:  We strongly recommend a NO vote on this initiative. Prop. 36 would reverse key reforms of Prop. 47 and take us backwards to a time when millions of taxpayer dollars were wasted on failed punitive measures instead of responsive rehabilitation programs that keep our communities safe. 

 

To understand the harms that Prop. 36 would pose, we should first understand a bit about Prop. 47. In 2014, voters by a significant majority ( nearly 60%) approved Prop. 47, rejecting the California tough on crime policies that had profound negative impacts on Black and other communities of color and led to severe overcrowding of state prisons. Overcrowding so severe that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment –– a violation of the Constitution. Prop. 47 was a critical reform that reclassified penalties for six nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, which decreased the state’s prison population as those convicted of Prop. 47 crimes either served their sentence in county jail, received probation or some combination of the two. Additionally, Prop. 47 requires the state to calculate and direct the annual savings on prison spending that results from the decrease in incarceration towards programs that work to reduce recidivism, provide mental health and substance use treatment services, offer trauma recovery services for crime victims and support vulnerable and at-risk  K-12  youth. 

 

On average, California has saved about $90 million a year (over $800 million) due to Prop. 47 and these funds, which would have otherwise gone to fund state prisons, have instead been invested in a broad range of programs designed to keep our communities safer. The benefits are undeniable and include: 90% of people who received diversion/reentry services funded by Prop 47 were NOT convicted of any new crimes; $110 million in funding to help kids stay in school and help people find housing, treatment and employment; a 40% decrease in reported guns on campus and a 33% decrease in gang membership. Additionally, these programs are proving successful in terms of reducing homelessness, with a 60% decrease in participants experiencing homelessness by the end of their program compared to when they enrolled. This is incredibly important, as about 1 in 5 unhoused Californians, were directly from institutional settings ( primarily jail or prison). 

 

Prop. 36 would undo key reforms, and therefore the important strides of Prop. 47, and replace them with cruel and costly policies that are not grounded in research or evidence, not to talk of compassion and care. This measure would: increase punishment for some theft and drug crimes, by turning certain misdemeanors like drug possession and petty theft into felonies; lengthen some felony sentences; and expand the Three Strikes Law,among other things. 

 

Prop. 36 is counterproductive and downright destructive: By reversing parts Prop. 47, Prop. 36 would actually cut tens of millions of annual state funding that support effective programs from the mental health and rehabilitation programs that help ensure people getting out of jail or prison are less likely to reoffend, to victim services, to drug treatment and instead uses that money to build and expand state prisons. Prop. 47 identified a problem –– mass incarceration and the harms to our communities’ safety –– and proposed solutions grounded in restorative justice that are responsive and actually working to support our safety and wellbeing. 

 

Prop. 36 is Costly: By increasing punishment for the various crimes, Prop. 36 creates considerable new costs at the state and local level. With estimates ranging from low tens to hundreds of millions on the conservative end to about $4.5 billion in ongoing state and local costs, Prop. 36 makes no  provisions to pay for these new expenses. This means funding cuts to core public services, especially in tough budget years like the one we are currently navigating, as governments will have to account for or accommodate this unfunded proposal.    

 

Prop 36 is unnecessary: This year, state lawmakers passed new laws directly meant to address retail theft and fentanyl trafficking. And these laws already impose significant consequences without diverting the much needed funds for treatment and rehabilitation. This is why this measure is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and most Democrats ––policies have been put in place to work to resolve the issues that the proponents of Prop. 36 claim they want to resolve. 

 

By reversing voter backed efforts which have proven to implement effective, responsive solutions that support the dignity and safety of all our communities, Prop. 36 will only destabilize our communities and perpetuate the systemic inequities that we have fought so hard to mitigate the harms of. We all deserve solutions that address root causes, not merely punitive measures to disrupt our state’s progress towards securing the health, safety and wellbeing of our communities. 

 

We have lived in the world that Prop. 36 aims to take us back to and we know how that story ends –– devastation of our communities. We must vote NO in order to move forward and build on the tangible progress that Prop. 47 has allowed our communities to make.

Measure A: Homeless Services and Affordable Housing Ordinance Revenue 

What it proposes: 

• Known as the “Affordable Housing, Homelessness Solution and Prevention Now” initiative
• Replace the quarter cent sales tax established through 2017’s Measure H with a permanent half-cent sales tax – which will raise approximately $1.2 billion dollars in annual revenue
• Expand mental health and substance abuse treatment 
• Provide legal services for renter protection against homelessness
• Creates more accountability to ensure the revenue is used for the issues outlined above. 

 

A “Yes” vote means: You support repealing and replacing the quarter cent tax of Measure H upon its expiration with a half cent sales tax – mostly on tourism goods & services that will be utilized to expand mental health & substance abuse treatment; combat homelessness and create more affordable housing. 

 

A  “No” vote means: You oppose replacing Measure H’s quarter cent tax once it  expires, therefore halting LA County homelessness prevention efforts. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale:  As it would call for revenue accountability to ensure homelessness efforts progress past Measure H’s 2027 expiration date; make housing more affordable and accessible and expand mental health & substance abuse treatment. Over 60% of the funds will go to homelessness solutions, 35% to affordable housing. For example, if you buy a $100 pair of shoes, the additional tax from this measure would only be 25 cents. NONE of the revenue from this tax will come from necessities – including but not limited to: groceries, gas, rent, medication, EBT/SNAP purchases or diapers. 

Measure G:  Charter Amendment to change structure of LA County Board of Supervisors

What it proposes:

• Aims to increase the size of the five-member Board of Supervisors to nine (9) and create an elected position to oversee the day-to-day operations. 
• The County Chief Executive, who oversees the budget & manages daily operations – similar to a mayor, would be elected by voters instead of appointed by the Board. 

 

A  “Yes” Vote means: You support these changes to the County Board of Supervisors and CEO’s office. 

A “No” Vote means: Would leave the currently five-supervisor structure in place. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: No. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale: Although this Measure may result in smaller geographic areas for each supervisor to tend to their constituents’ needs, it has been wrapped in political issues. Currently, the Board represents 2 million people each and oversees a $46 billion budget.The idea is that the Supervisors would represent fewer people and smaller geographic areas so they would be better in tune with the needs of their districts.  Under the plan, the nine-supervisor structure would not start until 2032, following a redistricting process, which could give some racial and ethnic groups new political prominence, most notably those in the often-overlooked unincorporated parts of the County.

 

Now, without a doubt, reform of the County governance structure is absolutely necessary to ensure better representation of all communities in the largest county in the state. To be clear, we strongly support county reform, but strongly oppose the rushed, uninclusive, opaque process that brought about Measure G. Such a significant and far reaching change should engage and seriously consider the input of all communities. It should reflect the best interests of all communities of LA County. It should be a transparent, methodical process, grounded in research, so as not to disenfranchise certain communities. 

To be clear, we are in support of a reform of the BOS structure, but take serious issue with the process. We truly have an opportunity to do this right, and unfortunately, the interests of a few are balanced on the backs of the broader community. For these reasons, we urge a NO vote on Measure G. 

City Council Charter Amendment DD: Independent Redistricting Commission

What it proposes: 

• Establishes a new independent redistricting commission composed of 16 members and four alternates who will serve 10 year terms. 
• LA residents would be responsible for determining council district boundaries.

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You support establishment of independent redistricting commission to 

redraw council district lines every 10 years. 

 

A “No” Vote means: You reject the proposed reform and maintain the status quo that allows     

          council members to continue drawing their own districts ––usually to keep themselves in power. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale: We recommend a yes vote, as it would give residents more control over council district boundaries – which will allow for a more meaningfully engaged community and a transparent process. The Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Reform members created a new roadmap for an independent commission After the now infamous audio leak that exposed the deep-seated anti-blackness as well as racism towards Indigenous Oaxacan people among certain L.A. City Council members. The leak pointed to an organized effort to consolidate power and weaken Black representation in Los Angeles, during a backroom discussion concerning redistricting plans. Because our communities deserve better, we are recommending a yes vote on Measure DD. 

 

City Council Charter Amendment LL: Independent Redistricting Commission for the Los Angeles Unified School District

What it proposes: 

• Give independent redistricting commissioners full authority to adopt new redistricting plans for LAUSD without influence of politicians 
• Requires transparency and public input throughout the process 
• Ensure representation from all communities across LAUSD including cities and unincorporated communities within the District 
• Guarantee that youth, students, District staff and teachers can participate. 

 

A “Yes” Vote means: You support the establishment of an independent redistricting commission to  redraw Board of Education district lines every 10 years in the Los Angeles Unified School District. 

 

A “No” Vote means: You oppose the establishment of an independent commission to redraw Board of Education district lines every 10 years. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes.

 

Rebel’s Rationale: As it would allow for greater community involvement in LAUSD redistricting plans.

 

Proposition O: Supporting Reproductive Rights

• Known as the San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act, this comprehensive proposal would declare it San Francisco city policy to: 1.) protect the rights of people to control their medical decisions; 2.) ensure confidentiality of reproductive health information; and 3.) serve as a refuge for people seeking reproductive healthcare

• Additionally, it would: 
  • Create a Reproductive Freedom Fund that accepts grants and gifts, including from private donors to support reproductive rights and services;
  • Require the city’s department of public health (DPH) to maintain a public website that:  lists the facilities that provide abortion care or emergency contraception and if not, those that offer referrals for these services. Additionally the website would list what the proposition calls limited services pregnancy centers, which are anti abortion or crisis pregnancy centers in San Francisco;
  • Authorize DPH to post signs outside anti abortion centers to inform the public that those facilities do not provide abortions or emergency contraception and do not refer to these services. These signs would also indicate where to obtain these services;
  • Prohibit City officials from providing information to law enforcement agencies of other states or the federal government concerning a person’s reproductive healthcare; and 
  • Modify the City’s zoning law to allow reproductive health clinics to operate in more areas of San Francisco

A “YES” Vote means:You support San Francisco’s City policy and law to protect and expand reproductive rights and services.

A “NO” Vote means: You oppose these changes to the city of San Francisco’s policy and law. 

 

Action Project Rebel Recommendation: Yes. 

 

Rebel’s Rationale:California has made wonderful strides to earn its designation as a reproductive freedom state. Yet and still, it is not immune to the unrelenting attacks on our reproductive rights and access to reproductive healthcare. There is so much work to be done to ensure that the rights afforded to Californians by law translates to actual access. One of the active and dangerous barriers that prevents full access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare is the Anti Abortion Center ( also known as: crisis pregnancy centers, pregnancy resource centers, and in this measure, limited service pregnancy centers). These centers

 

Some tea: Black Women for Wellness (BWW) successfully worked to get the Reproductive FACT Act signed into law in 2015. Among other things, this law sought to ensure that pregnant women in California are given accurate and complete information about their reproductive healthcare options by calling for unlicensed facilities specified in the law, to post a notice informing patients that they are unlicensed and do not have licensed medical practitioners providing or supervising reproductive health service. That law went all the way up to the Supreme Court as NIFLA v. Becerra, and unfortunately was struck down as likely violating the First Amendment rights of these facilities. This decision has left our communities vulnerable to the misinformation and unethical practices (which include coercion) of these centers, which means that we do not get all of the information and option necessary to make the best decision for ourselves, our health and our families if we are so unfortunate to encounter the nearly 200 Anti Abortion Centers (AACs) in CA. And because these centers target low-income women and women of color to dissuade from exercising their reproductive autonomy, it exacerbates the health inequities that we face. 

 

This measure is a nod to that, but instead of relying on the AACs to give notice to patients, it calls on the city to do this, which is great! 

 

Since we do not have comprehensive federal legislation to protect our right to the full spectrum or reproductive healthcare, state and local laws are critically important to ensuring that our communities can enjoy the full scope of our rights. While this is not a state law, kudos to San Francisco for working to ensure that its community has true access to the care that it needs.