California voters considered 10 ballot propositions this year; These are measures that touch on everything from insurance-related taxes and new bonds to combating climate change to proposals that would entrench same-sex marriage in California and crack down on not-so-trivial theft.

As of the first results from the foreign minister on Tuesday, the voting proposals were as follows:

LIVE ELECTION RESULTS: See chart of latest vote counts

Recommendation 2 (Education financing)

Four years after rejecting a proposal to sell $15 billion in bonds for new school buildings, California voters appear ready to break that cycle by passing Proposition 2, a $10 billion version of a similar school construction proposal, according to ballots counted late Tuesday.

Supporters of Proposition 2 note that low-income school districts in California rely heavily on bonds to pay for new construction and expand new services such as pre-kindergarten programs.

Opponents argue Proposition 2 is discriminatory because lower-income areas would get a larger share of the money.

Proposition 3 (Marriage equality)

A proposal to amend the state constitution to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right already guaranteed in federal law, appears likely to be approved by California voters, according to ballot measures released late Tuesday.

The idea of ​​legalizing the right to same-sex marriage gained traction in California and other states following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs that allowed states to set their own rules regarding abortion. As part of that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court should reconsider its 2013 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, and others echoed that sentiment.

In addition to preserving marriage equality in California, Proposition 3 also repeals Proposition 8 of 2008, which banned same-sex marriage. Although federal law invalidated Proposition 8, the law remained on the books.

Recommendation 4 (Environmental project finance)

Voters are preparing to accept a proposal to add nearly $10 billion in bond debt to pay for various projects linked to climate change.

Among other things, Proposition 4 would set aside $3.8 billion in new bond revenue for projects aimed at improving water quality and mitigating the effects of floods and droughts; both of these are more pronounced because California ping-pongs between the wet and dry rainy seasons.

Supporters argue the bonds are necessary because the state recently spent nearly $10 billion on environmental programs. Opponents say the bonds are expensive and would cost state taxpayers $400 million a year for 40 years

Recommendation 5 (Affordable housing)

Voters are poised to reject a proposal that would make it easier to pass tax-related bonds and lower the approval threshold from 66% to 55%, according to figures released late Tuesday.

Supporters say giving one-third of voters veto power over any tax increase is fundamentally undemocratic. Proposition 5 would significantly reduce, if not end, this imbalance.

Opponents of Proposition 5 say local taxes tend to fall disproportionately on property owners, so the tax burden itself is undemocratic. They also argue that the high threshold required to approve a tax prevents what they see as poor spending decisions.

Proposition 6 (Involuntary servitude)

Prisoners in California appear set to continue working for little or no pay, as statistics released late Tuesday showed voters are ready to reject Proposition 6, which aims to amend the state constitution to ban involuntary servitude in state prisons.

The rules laid out by Proposition 6 would end the practice of punishing inmates by forcing them to work as cooks, janitors, construction workers and firefighters, among other things. Proposition 6 calls for allowing inmates to work such jobs as a way to earn credit for time off.

Supporters say forced labor in state prisons is a remnant of slavery and that the practice disproportionately affects people of color. Opponents argue that changing the rules for prison operations is an unaffordable form of compensation at a time when the state is facing budget shortfalls.

Proposition 32 (Minimum wage increase)

It’s still unclear whether low-wage workers in California will get raises starting this month, as late voting counts on Tuesday showed only a small gap among those who would defeat Proposition 32.

California’s current minimum wage is $16 per hour, but complex exemptions based on industry type and geography already mean a slightly higher payday for many workers.

But Proposition 32 would expand the raises to an estimated 2 million people who currently earn the state minimum income. The new minimum will be $17 per hour in 2025 and $18 per hour in 2026.

Supporters say higher minimum wages reflect the realities of living in California. They also argue that many minimum wage workers are forced to rely on government programs for food and housing assistance, and that forcing employers to raise wages would benefit state taxpayers and local economies.

Opponents say higher minimum wages would mean fewer new jobs and possibly some layoffs. They state that the state delayed increasing the minimum wage increase for public employees after the budget deficits became evident last year, and that private businesses should be allowed to act according to the same rules.

Proposition 33 (Rent control)

Proposition 33, a proposal to expand rent control in California, appeared likely to be defeated late Tuesday.

Although many cities in California have had rent control over rental records for decades, those rules were blunted by Costa-Hawkins, a law that limited rent control to homes and apartments built before 1995 and allowed landlords to raise rents when new tenants moved in. Proposition 33 aims to allow cities to set rent rules that work for the majority of their residents.

The share of renters in California (44%) is much higher than the national average (35%), and supporters of Proposition 33 say many of those renters pay more than a third of their income to keep a roof over their heads.

Supporters of Proposition 33 say the rules would ease rental obligations for millions of Californians and help slow the state’s growing housing crisis.

Opponents say the law would have the opposite effect.

Recommendation 34 (Health expenditures)

The final vote count Tuesday gave no clear direction on Proposition 34, a bill that could be challenged again in court if it becomes law.

Essentially, Proposition 34 is a proposed change to the health care law. This would require a very specific subset of healthcare providers to reserve 98% of the discount they receive when purchasing drugs specifically for use in patient care.

But the world of health care providers described in the measure is so narrow that many believe it applies to a single organization: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS health centers in California and 14 other states.

Opponents say Proposition 34 is intended to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for advocating lower rents and other concepts opposed by the real estate industry. Supporters say the purpose of the law is to instill accountability; Federal reductions in drug prices should be used to help patients.

It is against federal and state law to make an offer directed to any person or company.

Proposition 35 (Health tax)

Voters want California to spend the nearly $35 billion expected to come from Medi-Cal taxes over the next four years on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians, rather than on the general fund, according to voting results late Tuesday. .

This spending path is the underlying promise of Proposition 35, which aims to change Sacramento’s long-standing practice of using Medi-Cal taxes to close fiscal gaps in non-healthcare areas.

Supporters of Proposition 35 argue that the system needs financial support. Opponents say the measure is too restrictive on how money is spent in Sacramento.

Proposition 36 (Retail theft and drug crimes)

A decade after passing Proposition 47, which aimed to reduce penalties and incarceration rates for drug-related crimes, California voters appeared to reverse course late Tuesday by overwhelmingly supporting Proposition 36.

The new measure reclassifies some misdemeanors as felonies and creates a new category of crimes — felonies that require treatment — that would give addicts convicted of certain crimes the option of completing rehabilitation or serving up to three years in prison.

The vote reflects widespread frustration over pandemic-era spikes in retail thefts, car thefts and the apparent awareness among some criminals that stealing anything worth less than $1,000 won’t land you in jail. A study found that burglary crimes involving property valued at $950 or less increased by nearly 28% in the five-year period ending last year.

Supporters of Proposition 36 link the law to homelessness and say the number of people struggling to find housing also includes people struggling with addiction.

Opponents say the bill would backfill jails and prisons that have become less crowded since the passage of Proposition 47, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.