Voters have a lot at stake this year, with local measures and propositions on the ballot that could reshape the political landscape.
However, it’s important to acknowledge that the ballot can often be confusing, filled with legal jargon and complex terminology.
“Many people, even those with voting experience, find ballots confusing; it’s definitely something you have to wade through,” said Kim Mompean, a licensed marriage and family therapist and Stockton resident who has been a registered voter for 40 years.
“My wife and I have plans to read through the voters guide because we know how essential it is to understand not just what you’re voting for, but how those decisions affect our community and our wallets,” said Mompean.
Samantha Holcomb, a recent alumna, also shared her voting experience: “I voted and dropped mine off at one of the ballot boxes. I went based on the voters pamphlet we were mailed on each proposition,” she said.
As the community seeks to make sense of the Nov. 5 election results, understanding each measure’s implications becomes crucial for informed civic involvement.
Understanding Measures and Propositions
Measures often pertain to local governance, such as changes in information flow or funding for educational facilities, while propositions typically address broader state issues like ban on abortions and wage increases.
Funding for these measures often comes from taxpayer dollars. For instance, if a measure authorizes bonds for school improvements, taxpayers may be responsible for repaying those bonds over a set period.
This means that when voters decide on these measures, they are not just casting their votes but also making a long-term financial commitment that will impact their community and their personal finances.
Key Election Dates
- Nov. 5: Election Day. Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., allowing voters to cast their ballots in person.
- Nov. 12: Deadline for vote-by-mail ballots. Ballots must be returned by this date to ensure they are counted.
- Dec. 5: Final date for county elections officials to certify the election results, confirming the accuracy of the tally.
- Dec. 6: County election officials must send the Secretary of State an electronic copy of the general election results.
- Dec. 13: The official certified election results will be posted by the Secretary of State.
What’s on your Ballot?
Measure K: Funding for San Joaquin Delta College Facilities – Will authorize $598 million in bonds for facility improvements and job training programs at San Joaquin Delta College.
Fiscal Impact: The bond will be repaid through property taxes, levied at a rate of $16 per $100,000 of assessed property value or approximately $30 million annually.
Dr. Katrina Leon, Dean of Applied Sciences, Business, and Technology emphasized the benefits of passing Measure K reach far beyond financial figures.
“When a person thinks of Measure K, it isn’t just about funding Delta; it’s about providing opportunities for current students and future generations so that they can participate in meaningful ways within the community we reside. It is very much a symbiotic relationship,” she said.
Voting “yes” allows the San Joaquin Delta Community District to issue $598 million in bonds for school improvements; a “no” vote rejects it.
Supporters believe this measure is crucial for the college’s growth and ability to serve the community. “San Joaquin Delta College wishes to enhance academic programming, and Measure K allows for needed renovations and updates to support student needs and aspirations,” said Dr. Leon.
Measure R: Tackling Drug Dependency in Aid Recipients – Aimed at requiring drug dependency screening and treatment for county-aid recipients under 65.
Fiscal Impact: Cost savings from discontinued services would be allocated to a County fund for screening, evaluation, and treatment costs.
Voting “yes” requires drug dependency screening for single adults under 65 receiving County General Assistance; a “no” vote opposes this.
Measure R has stirred discussions around personal accountability and support for those seeking change.
“I’ve spoken with incarcerated individuals who have shared their desire to turn their lives around, attend Delta College, and eventually become counselors or mentors,” said Resource Specialist James Forte.
“It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with the measure — it’s about recognizing that the responsibility for change lies within the individual. They have to want to put in the effort to make that change happen.”
Measure M: Changing Stockton’s Information Flow – Shifts control of the City’s Public Information Office to the City Manager.
Fiscal Impact: Unclear
Voting “yes” assigns the Stockton Public Information Office to the City Manager; voting “no” rejects this change.
Measure N: New Arbitration Process for Police and Fire Disputes – Proposes arbitration over mediation in pay and condition disputes for police and fire unions.
Fiscal Impact: Unclear
Voting “yes” supports binding arbitration for police and fire employee disputes; voting “no” opposes this change.
Proposition 2: Investing in Education Infrastructure – Allocates $10 billion for K-12 and community college facility renovations and new construction.
Fiscal Impact: Estimated taxpayer cost of $500 million annually for bond repayments over 35 years.
Leon’s journey from high school teacher to principal, and now to Dean, has given her firsthand insight into the challenges of funding shortfalls and the need for policy changes in education.
“Whether a person is in a PK-12 or a post-secondary environment, the challenge is the same,” she said. “Federal and state funding does not account for ongoing facilities needs. As technology and industry change, student populations fluctuate, and the labor market demands ebb and flow, there is pressure on educational agencies to keep up.”
A “yes” vote permits borrowing $10 billion for public school and community college facilities; a “no” vote prevents it.
Proposition 3: Constitutional Protection for Same-Sex Marriage – Removes outdated language, amending the California Constitution to protect same-sex marriage.
Fiscal Impact: No change in revenue or expenses for state and local governments.
A “yes” vote updates marriage language in the California Constitution without changing eligibility; a “no” vote keeps the language as is.
Proposition 4: Funding Environmental and Climate Initiatives – Authorizes $10 billion for climate and water projects, with a $1.9 billion focus on clean drinking water.
Fiscal Impact: Estimated repayment costs around $400 million annually for 40 years.
A “yes” vote allows the state to borrow $10 billion for natural resource conservation and climate change response; a “no” vote prohibits this borrowing.
Proposition 5: Lowering Voter Threshold for Affordable Housing Bonds – Reduces requirement from two-thirds to 55% for local affordable housing bonds.
Fiscal Impact: Will depend on local government and voter decisions, with repayment through higher property taxes.
A “yes” vote allows local bonds for affordable housing and infrastructure to be approved with a 55% vote, while a “no” vote maintains the current two-thirds requirement.
Proposition 6: Ending Forced Labor in Prisons – Eliminates mandatory inmate labor in favor of a voluntary program.
Fiscal Impact: State and local costs may vary based on changes in state prison and county jail work programs, but any impact is likely to remain under millions of dollars annually.
A “yes” vote prohibits involuntary servitude as punishment for crime, while a “no” vote allows it to continue.
Proposition 32: Increasing California’s Minimum Wage – Raises minimum wage to $17 in 2024 and $18 by 2025.
Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs may fluctuate by millions annually, while revenues are expected to decline by no more than a few hundred million dollars each year.
A “yes” vote sets the state minimum wage at $18 per hour in 2026, while a “no” vote keeps it around $17 per hour that year.
Proposition 33: Expanding Rent Control Across California – Extends rent control laws to all housing units, affecting landlords’ ability to increase rents.
Fiscal Impact: Local property tax revenues may decline by at least tens of millions annually due to expected rent control expansion in some communities.
A “yes” vote removes state limits on the types of rent control laws cities and counties can implement, while a “no” vote maintains those limits.
Proposition 34: Direct Patient Care Spending in Healthcare – Requires providers in the federal drug discount program to spend 98% of revenue on patient care.
Fiscal Impact: Could incur annual costs in the millions, covered by fees from affected healthcare organizations.
A “yes” vote imposes new revenue rules on certain health care entities from a federal drug discount program, while a “no” vote keeps current rules.
Proposition 35: Sustaining Medi-Cal with a Permanent Healthcare Tax – Makes the tax on managed healthcare plans permanent to fund Medi-Cal services.
Fiscal Impact: State costs of $1 billion to $2 billion annually for health program funding, with total increases of $2 billion to $5 billion annually; long-term fiscal effects are uncertain.
Holcomb expressed her enthusiasm for the measure. “My favorite was Prop 35. I like it because it seems to benefit everyone, especially those who rely on government aid programs,” she said.
A “yes” vote makes the health plan tax permanent with rules for its use; a “no” vote ends it in 2027 unless renewed.
Proposition 36: Stricter Penalties for Repeat Drug and Theft Offenders – Allows felony charges for specific offenses for individuals with two prior convictions.
Fiscal Impact: Expected to range from tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, while local costs will likely be in the tens of millions.
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors is urging support for Proposition 36. In a press release, District 3 Supervisor Tom Patti highlighted the need for urgent action, expressing gratitude for the Board’s backing of both Proposition 36 and Measure R.
“The dangers of fentanyl, the crime inflicted upon our small business owners, and the encampments that crowd our streets show that previous efforts have not been a sufficient response, and we are determined to do more,” he said.
A “yes” vote allows tougher penalties for some drug and theft crimes; a “no” vote keeps current punishments.
Your vote is your voice — make it count!
