The California Voter Guide and sample ballot provides details on each proposition.
Proposition 1
Proposition 1 authorizes $4 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing.
Proponents argue affordable housing for veterans, working families, seniors, people with disabilities and Californians experiences homelessness.
Opponents state there are other approaches that might work better than a $4 billion bond.
Proposition 2
Proposition 2 would authorize bonds to fund existing housing program for individuals with mental illness.
Proponents say it will help people off the streets and into mental health service and/or addiction treatment.
Opponents argue it would take $5.6 billion away from mentally ill people to fund those bonds to without requiring treatment.
Proposition 3
Proposition 3 authorizes bonds to fund water supply and quality infrastructure projects.
Proponents state the work would repair unsafe dams, provide drought protection and improve water quality.
Opponents argue that despite the costs, the plan won’t produce any new usable water.
Proposition 4
Proposition 4 would authorize $1.5 billion in bonds, funding construction and renovation at hospitals providing children’s health care.
Proponents focus on how the measure would provide specialized care for 2 million sick children each year besides what the family can pay.
Opponents argue that the money borrowed would have to repaid with interest and ignores the bigger picture in improving health care in California.
Proposition 5
Proposition 5 changes requirements for certain property owners to transfer their property tax base to replacement property, removing requirements for homeowners over 55, those with severe disabilities, or those owning property that is contaminated or destroyed by disasters.
Proponents say the changes would allow seniors and people with severe disabilities to purchase a new primarily residence and not face a “moving penalty.”
Opponents it would cut $1 billion in revenue from public schools, police and other services without building any new housing.
Proposition 6
Proposition 6 would eliminate road repair and transportation funding by repealing a 2017 transportation tax. It would also amend the state constitution and require fuel taxes be approved by voters.
Proponents say it would lower taxes on vehicles and fuel, along with requiring voter approval for future increases.
Opponents say it would jeopardize the safety of bridges and roads by eliminating funding.
Proposition 7
Proposition 7 would conform California Daylight Saving Time to federal law and allow the state Legislature to change the daylight saving time period.
Proponents say it would end the biannual time changes that may be hazardous to children’s health and productivity.
Opponents argue children would be going to school in the dark and sleeping in the evening while there is still light.
Proposition 8
Proposition 8 regulates the amount that can be charged for dialysis treatment at a clinic.
Proponents say it supports investment in quality patient care and stops overcharging that drives up costs for Californians.
Opponents argue it would result in closure of many dialysis clinics in California, which reduces access to care while increasing cost for taxpayers.
Proposition 10
Proposition 10 would repeal a state law that restricts local governments from implementing rent control policies on residential property.
Proponents say it restores authority to establish rent control in local communities and makes it so landlords have a limit to rent prices.
Opponents argue it won’t be beneficial to renters or homeowners, because it would put bureaucrats in charge of housing by letting them add fees to rent.
Proposition 11
Proposition 11 eliminates certain employer liabilities by requiring private sector emergency ambulance employees to remain on call during breaks.
Proponents say it ensures that EMTs and paramedics are paid to be reachable during breaks to save lives.
Proposition 12
Proposition 12 establishes new standards for confinement of farm animals. It also prohibits sale of meat and egg products from animals confined in a non-compliant manner.
Proponents say products from caged animals threaten food safety.
Opponents argue that it would legalizes cages until at least 2022.
