California voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to reverse course on progressive criminal justice reform, cracking down on theft crimes and the use of the deadly drug fentanyl.
Proposition 36 reforms a law approved a decade ago that reduced some felonies to misdemeanors and was seen as a milestone in California’s attempt to end the harsh tough-on-crime policies of the past.
Support for Proposition 36 comes amid rising concerns about crime, homelessness and drug use in the state, an issue seized upon by Republicans and some big-city Democratic mayors during the 2024 election.
“For more than a decade, California voters have urged state leaders to reduce excessive incarceration and wasteful spending on prisons and expand investments into programs proven to prevent crime in the first place and stop crime cycles through rehabilitation,” said Anthony York, a spokesperson for the No on 36 campaign. “The broad coalition of organizations that opposed Prop. 36 will continue to advocate for smart and effective criminal justice reform and new safety solutions that work for all communities.”
Californians also voted on Tuesday to approve Proposition 3, shedding the last vestiges of Proposition 8, the 2008 voter-approved measure that banned same-sex marriage and was later declared unconstitutional.
The measure repeals the outdated clause and enshrines marriage as a “fundamental right” for all — a precaution that supporters including Gov. Gavin Newsom said was necessary in case of potential Supreme Court rulings by a conservative majority of justices appointed by former President Trump.
Proposition 32, a statewide ballot initiative to increase California’s current $16 minimum wage by $2 for all employees by 2026, appeared to be in a closer race but headed toward failure.
The measure received support from labor unions and anti-poverty advocates but was opposed by influential business interests.
Proposition 36 was by far the highest-profile measure, with millions raised on both sides and so politically tricky that Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, a former California attorney general, refused to say whether she supported it.
Opinion polls leading up to Tuesday’s election showed strong voter support for Proposition 36 despite warnings from Newsom and the California Legislature’s Democratic leadership, who urged voters to take a cautious approach to the ballot measure, saying it would take away state savings that are allocated to anti-recidivism programs and dramatically increase prison populations.
The support for Proposition 36 alarmed criminal justice advocates, who argued that Proposition 47 helped reduce incarceration and promoted reform, while critics claim it contributed to rising crime rates in the state.
Proponents of the measure said Tuesday’s results “reflect Californian’s strong desire for safer communities.”
California voters also weighed in on propositions that would affect the state’s climate change response, rent and more. This story will be updated as vote tallies become available.
Proposition 2
Voters approved this bond measure, which will authorize the state to borrow $10 billion to modernize K-12 schools and community colleges. The funding is to be used to repair outdated school buildings and to upgrade libraries, heating and cooling systems and broadband internet.
The money from the last successful school bond, passed by voters in 2016, has been spent, and school districts report aging buildings, hazardous mold and leaky roofs.
Proposition 4
California voters approved this bond measure, which will authorize the state to borrow $10 billion to help fund the response to climate-related disasters such as drought, flooding and extreme heat. It will also help to ensure clean drinking water and protect forests from fires. It is the largest investment in combating climate change in California history.
California taxpayers will pay the bond back with interest, with the cost estimated at $400 million a year for the next 40 years, or $16 billion, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office in Sacramento.
Proposition 5
This measure would make it easier for local governments to approve bonds and tax measures that fund affordable housing and some public infrastructure. Proposition 5 lowers the required vote threshold to approve those measures from a two-thirds supermajority to 55%.
The new threshold would apply to local measures impacting low-income housing, road and transit expansions, parks and wildfire resilience.
Early poll results showed that a majority of voters opposed this measure.
Proposition 6
This measure would ban involuntary servitude and end mandatory work requirements for state prisoners. The proposed constitutional amendment is part of a reparations package for descendants of African Americans enslaved in the U.S.
California is one of eight states that still allows involuntary servitude as a criminal punishment. Proposition 6 would end work mandates for state prisoners, instead creating voluntary work programs.
Early poll results showed that a majority of voters opposed this measure.
Proposition 33
California voters rejected this measure, which would have emboldened cities and counties to enact rent control. Proposition 33 would have repealed a 1995 law called the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which generally prohibits local governments from limiting rental rates as issued by landlords.
The measure would have given local jurisdictions more power to regulate rent and allowedthem to mandate price caps.
Proposition 34
This measure would require that healthcare providers spend most of the revenue they get from federal prescription drug discount programs on direct patient care.
It applies only to a very specific subset of doctors who have spent more than $100 million over a decade on “anything other than direct patient care.”
Early poll results showed this measure had a modest lead.
Proposition 35
California voters approved a measure to provide permanent funding for Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid.
Right now, a tax on managed health insurance plans that funds the program is set to expire in 2026. The state can reap more federal money as a result of charging the tax.