SF Rising November 2024 Voter Guide

Sep 19, 2024 | Blog, Uncategorized, Updates

Check out our local and state ballot measure endorsements for the November 5th, 2024, Presidential Election! Now available to download in English, Chinese, Spanish, and Tagalog below.

Download our 2024 English Voter Guide
Salta a la Guía del Votante en Español
Lumipat sa Gabay ng Botante sa Tagalog
跳转到中文选民指南

What will these ballot measures do?

Local Ballot Measures

YES on PROP A: Fund our public schools

Students in San Francisco deserve to learn in environments that allow them to thrive.

Prop A would allow San Francisco to borrow $790 million to improve learning spaces for students in SFUSD. This money could be used to renovate classrooms and school buildings, improve technology and networks, create outdoor learning spaces, construct a Food Hub for Student Nutrition Services, and modernize a large high school campus. The bond could also go towards providing healthy meals for students which is especially important considering that SFUSD is the largest food security provider for children in San Francisco.

Investing in our schools is a key step in addressing public safety concerns by ensuring that students can learn in an environment that enables them to succeed. It’s these types of investments in our education that actually work to curb crime, not our punitive carceral system and other harsh crime policies.

This measure would require 55% of the vote to pass and does not raise taxes on San Franciscans.

At a time when SFUSD schools are facing closures, it’s vital that the schools that remain open are well resourced and propel students toward academic success, wellness, safety, and self-development.

YES on Prop B: Improve public health facilities and homeless services

This measure would allow San Francisco to borrow $390 million to revitalize our infrastructure and expand services that many San Franscicans rely on. More specifically, this money could be used to improve sidewalks and roads, renovate and expand the Chinatown Health Clinic, repair the Zuckerberg General Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital, and expand services for unhoused people. The infrastructure and facilities that this bond would help improve and expand are critical to making our streets safe for everyone and for local communities to meet their basic needs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us how important it is to have public health facilities that we can trust to get us the care we need. Prop B will give San Francisco critical funding to repair aging facilities in dire need of renovations. Vote YES on Prop B to improve San Francisco’s infrastructure and health care facilities!

YES on Prop C: Root out corruption in San Francisco

Prop C would allow for a new inspector general position in San Francisco to create more oversight and reduce corruption that has run rampant in our city’s government in recent years. The inspector general, who would be nominated by the controller and approved by the Mayor and Board of Supervisors, would be responsible for leading investigations into potential legal violations, fraud, waste, and abuse in the city. The measure would also expand the controller’s abilities to investigate by enabling them subpoena and search warrant powers.

In recent years, San Francisco has been plagued by scandals including corruption at the Public Works Department entailing bribery. It’s critical that we make good governance improvements to City Hall to close the gaps that allow corruption to go unchecked. San Franciscans deserve a local government that runs fairly and ethically.

Let’s catch up with other big cities like New York, Chicago, and New Orleans who have inspector generals. Vote YES on Prop C!

NO on Prop D: Weaken the checks and balances in our local government

San Francisco is what’s called a “strong-mayor city.” Our mayor holds a disproportionate amount of power for one person, compared to other big cities that distribute that power between the mayor and their legislative branch: city councils or boards of supervisors.

San Francisco’s mayor can introduce, approve, and veto bills, appoint members to the board of supervisors, control the city budget and city departments, and make appointments to city offices. And those appointments aren’t just temporary. The mayor’s appointees often go on to win election campaigns because of the mayor’s influence.

Now we don’t have to tell you why it’s a bad idea to give one person too much power, but billionaire-backed political group TogetherSF put this deceptive measure on the San Francisco ballot under the guise of cutting down on bureaucracy by eliminating unnecessary commissions. But those 65 commissions that could be on the chopping block have provided important checks and balances to the mayor’s power, and serve important needs of San Franciscans. Some commissions under threat include commissions on Human Rights, Human Services, Health, Youth, Environment, the Status of Women. Under this measure, the person with the sole ability to bring back any of the commissions this measure aims to disband is none other than the mayor of San Francisco. The measure also would allow the mayor to appoint at least two-thirds of commission members, while the Board of Supervisors would only be able to appoint one-third. The measure would give the mayor sole authority to appoint and remove department heads and further weaken the police commission’s ability to keep SFPD in check. Prop D is really about giving an already powerful mayor more power, with a knock to police oversight slipped in as well.

Groups like Together SF, who see long-standing, working-class San Francisco communities as detrimental to their vision of a tech-dominated city for the ultra-wealthy, are willing to give an already powerful mayor even more power to cut out the voices of people who are most impacted by the existence of these commissions.

Reject this power grab by TogetherSF and vote NO on Prop D.

YES on Prop E: Enshrine public input in changes to the city’s commissions

Prop E would create a task force to make recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors about which San Francisco commissions are unnecessary and should be cut. The task force would be made up of a panel of 5 people, each appointed by the city administrator, the controller, the city attorney, the President of the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor. This measure is an alternative to Prop D which cuts the number of city commissions in half and gives the sole ability to restore commissions to the mayor. Prop E, as an alternate solution to dealing with the excessive number of commissions, would allow this process to happen in a public setting with input from community members.

Vote YES on Prop E for more government transparency and better democratic practices.

NO on Prop F: Pump more money into an already bloated budget for SFPD

Prop F would give yet more money to the San Francisco Police Department, whose budget already exceeds $800 million a year. Under this measure, if an SFPD police officer with 25 years or more of experience puts off their retirement for 5 years, they would earn more interest on their retirement benefits. This incentive for police officers to delay their retirement would cost our city $600 thousand to $3 million a year. San Francisco police are already among the highest paid public workers in the city. This retirement deferment program – along with the other programs that have increased compensation for police like overtime – would bump up some police officer’s salaries to over $400 thousand.

Instead of pumping more money into already bloated police budgets, we should be investing in proven solutions that curb crime: quality education for everyone, living wage jobs so people can pay their bills, and mental health resources that are easily available. Dependence on police so heavily ignores the fact that many emergency situations are outside of a police officer’s expertise, such as mental health crises and people experiencing homelessness. But the SF Chronicle reports that “The average salaries of social workers, transit operators and 911 call operators, for example, don’t usually go higher than $130,000, and their optional annual retirement contributions are far less than those offered to police officers.” Putting so much investment into police but neglecting to invest in the other professions that improve public safety is bad policy.

We also know that SFPD, like other police departments, has a history of violence against BIPOC communities, particularly against Black and Latine communities. Over 60 people have been killed by SFPD since 2000, a disproportionate number of them were young, Black, and/or Latine, unhoused and/or had a mental health condition. Yet, not one SFPD officer has been prosecuted for homicide. In fact, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins dropped both open police homicide cases last year, in addition to two other police misconduct cases. Giving more handouts to a department that has not been held accountable for their actions gives them the green light to keep harming our communities.

We are urging a big NO on Prop F this November.

YES on Prop G: Ensure housing for seniors, working families, and people with disabilities

Shockingly, most of our city’s lowest income residents don’t qualify for affordable housing. Every year, thousands of San Francisco’s seniors, working families, and people with disabilities try to apply for affordable housing and are rejected because their incomes are too low. That’s because the vast majority of San Francisco’s affordable housing sets the lowest rents according to incomes of “very low income” households but thousands of San Franciscans’ incomes fall below that standard, into a category called “extremely low income.” There are 66,000 extremely low income residents in San Francisco who are disproportionately seniors and people with disabilities. After waiting for years on waitlists to apply for affordable housing, many people who have extremely low incomes are either told they don’t qualify or, if they do, they end up having to pay a disproportionate amount of their income on rent.

To address this, the Board of Supervisors created a pilot program in 2019 called the Senior Operating Subsidies Program Fund (SOS), which successfully provided affordable housing at extremely-low income rent levels to more than one hundred senior households who would have never qualified for affordable housing without the program. Despite the clear need for SOS funding to address housing inequities in San Francisco, it has not been built into the city’s annual budgets and the remaining funding for SOS is being depleted.

Prop G would establish a Housing Opportunity Fund to ensure that there is continuous funding for the SOS program and expand it to working families and people with disabilities who are currently shut out of San Francisco’s affordable housing system. If passed, Prop G would put aside $8.2 million a year starting in 2026 to subsidize units of housing that are affordable to extremely low income households. The money would come from the City Budget and not raise taxes on individuals.

We are urging a YES on Prop G to ensure residents with extremely low incomes are able to access housing in San Francisco.

NEUTRAL on Prop H: Change the Retirement Age for Firefighter’s benefits

This measure would allow firefighters at the San Francisco Fire Department to retire and receive full pension benefits 3 years earlier at 55 years old instead of 58. Backers of this measure believe that by allowing firefighters to retire 3 years earlier, it will limit their exposure to harmful cancer-causing carcinogens.

Our organization has decided not to take a position on Prop H. While we recognize the importance of addressing the health risks faced by firefighters due to exposure to carcinogens, this measure primarily impacts a specific group within the workforce, and our focus is on issues that broadly affect the majority of our base. We remain committed to advocating for policies that raise the floor for all workers, and we respect the importance of specialized measures like Prop H. However, given that our base is not significantly advocating on this issue, we believe it is appropriate to remain neutral. Our stance should not be interpreted as opposition to worker benefits, but rather as a reflection of our prioritization of issues that have a broader impact on the communities we serve.

YES on Prop I: Improve retirement benefits for nurses and 911 operators

This measure would allow certain registered nurses to tap into our city’s retirement plan and increase their pension benefits, with the hope of recruiting more nurses amidst current staffing shortages. This measure would also allow 911 operators, supervisors, and coordinators to move to a different retirement plan starting next year that would lead to increased retirement benefits, which are available to many other emergency first responders.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we depended on nurses to get us through an unprecedented time of overcrowded waiting rooms and severe staffing shortages. Nurses put, and continue to put, their lives on the line to make sure their patients get the healthcare they need – even during extremely difficult times like the pandemic. It’s time we improve retirement benefits for nurses to recruit more nurses and address unacceptable staffing shortages.

YES on Prop J: Ensure New School Funds are Used Effectively

About 4% of our city’s budget goes toward schools in the San Francisco Unified School District and children services at the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and the Department of Early Childhood.

This measure would require San Francisco Unified School District and city departments to work together to create a five-year plan to ensure that city funds are being used effectively. By creating clear goals and a long-term plan, this measure would help schools avoid unnecessary spending. SFUSD and city departments using funding for child services would have to abide by plans that may include spending a certain amount of money on sports, libraries, arts, and music programs for example.

With SFUSD facing a $400 million long-term budget deficit, it’s vital that the funds meant for San Francisco schools are used properly.

Prop J is about ensuring that funds going towards supporting students are put to good use and that the funding is being used for what it’s meant for: to help students thrive.

NEUTRAL on Prop K: Turn Upper Great Highway into an Oceanfront Park

Prop K would close a 2-mile stretch of Upper Great Highway to cars in order to create a new oceanfront park between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard. Because coastal erosion and rising sea levels have caused sand accumulation on our roads, this section of the Great Highway is frequently closed to drivers anyway. A pilot program currently has this section open for vehicles on weekdays, and closed on weekends. If Prop K were to pass, this closure would become permanent and drivers would be directed to other routes, leaving this area free for pedestrians and bicyclists to enjoy.

Proponents believe this measure will improve traffic conditions since this section of the Great Highway is closed up to 65 times a year due to sand accumulation, with studies showing drive times would be the same or even faster. Also, it would keep out pollution from vehicles from this area, allowing more people to enjoy our coastline. They point to the pilot program which has brought in 10,000 visitors every weekend to enjoy the car-free promenade.

Opponents argue that diverting cars away from the Great Highway will cause more traffic in surrounding neighborhoods and subject drivers to longer commutes, exacerbating air pollution.

We are taking a neutral position because most of our community base lives on the east and southeast side of the city.

YES on Prop L: Tax Corporations to Fund Muni

San Francisco is rated as one of the top cities for public transit. People depend on Muni to commute to work, to get to school, and to see their families and friends. Public transit is a better option for our environment, helping us keep harmful carbon emissions out of our air by taking more cars off the road. But with a looming budget deficit for SFMTA (The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) starting in 2026, Muni is in crisis.

The ComMUNIty Transit Act would prevent service cuts to Muni and add new routes to better connect community members to public schools, libraries, and parks. The funding from this measure could also be used to continue and expand discount programs for youth, seniors, people with disabilities, and people with low incomes.

The measure would raise the money needed to fund Muni through a tax on ride-hail platform companies in the city, like Uber, Lyft, and Waymo. This would generate approximately $20 million-$30 million a year, closing the gap of what Muni needs not just to stay afloat, but for us to improve the service and better connect community members to neighborhoods in San Francisco.

It’s time that wealthy corporations start paying their fair share and funding programs that benefit our communities. Vote YES this November to fund Muni! More information here.

NEUTRAL on Prop M: Change business tax structures NO POSITION

This measure would change how taxes on businesses are calculated. Instead of taxes based heavily on payroll expenses, they would be determined by sales profit. This change would ease some of the burden on the five biggest employers in the city who are responsible for paying 85% of all business taxes in San Francisco and spread the burden among other big companies, in hopes that the City wouldn’t be too reliant on a handful of companies to bring in revenue. As a result, some businesses would pay more in taxes and some businesses would pay less. If passed, Prop M would make it so that small businesses that make $5 million or less a year in revenue would not have to pay business taxes. This currently applies to businesses that make only $2 million or less a year in revenue.

If Prop M doesn’t pass, every business’s taxes would go up because of a proposition passed by voters in 2020.

YES on Prop N: Cancel student debt for first responders

Prop N would cancel up to $25,000 of student debt for first responders in San Francisco. First responders in the police department, sheriff’s department, fire department, paramedics, registered nurses, and 911 dispatchers would qualify after 3 consecutive years of working full-time in their department. The $1 million fund would cover any student debt these employees had before joining the city as well as any job-related education and training expenses that aren’t already eligible for reimbursement.

Education is a basic right. SF Rising Action Fund strongly believes that everyone, regardless of wealth or income, should be able to go to college for free. The student debt crisis in the United States has surpassed $1.7 trillion and with the corrupt Supreme Court’s ruling that President Biden’s student debt cancellation plan was unconstitutional, we must do everything we can to ease the burden of debt on students. No one should be punished for simply trying to get an education. This measure would only be the start to addressing our mounting student debt crisis.

YES on Prop O: Protect people seeking abortion in San Francisco

Just two years ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, putting the lives, freedoms, and futures of millions of people who can get pregnant at risk. Not only are pregnant people in 21 states across the U.S. either banned or severely restricted from getting abortions in their own states, the same people who came after abortion rights are also now threatening to punish pregnant people from seeking abortions in other states as well. No one should face a threat of prosecution for making a decision about their own body.

People who seek abortions are overwhelmingly young, women of color, or already have children. We must do more to allow people to make what decisions are best for them and their bodies.

That’s why we are supporting the San Francisco Reproductive Freedom Act, which protects pregnant people’s information when they seek reproductive care in our city. It’s absurd to think that someone would be prosecuted for simply seeking healthcare, but that is the future that the anti-abortion movement wants. The Reproductive Freedom Act would prevent San Francisco from using city funds to provide information to support the prosecution of a reproductive health service.

This measure also aims to eliminate barriers to reproductive care by requiring public information to be provided about where people can access reproductive health services and requiring signage at crisis pregnancy centers (essentially anti-abortion facilities that pose as reproductive healthcare centers) that tell people those locations do not provide comprehensive reproductive healthcare and where they can get information about locations that do.

State Ballot Measures

YES on PROP 2: Fund our schools and community colleges

Students should be able to learn in a safe environment without having to worry about health issues that could arise from being exposed to mold and other dangerous conditions. Teachers and other school staff – who are already underpaid and overworked – also deserve to educate in an environment that meets basic safety standards. Yet, 38% of students in California go to schools that do not meet minimum facility standards.

Prop 2 would enable California to borrow $10 billion to improve thousands of schools across the state through repairs and upgrades. Some of the uses for this bond include addressing hazardous mold, leaky roofs, and septic systems, building classrooms, modernizing science labs, and replacing aging buildings. The current fund to repair issues on school campuses is expected to be depleted by January 2025.

Some of the money in this bond would also go to community colleges, whose student population is disproportionately low-income and BIPOC. Students of color make up 60% of community college enrollment in California. Funding repairs and ensuring basic health standards are met is also about ensuring community college students get to feel safe on campuses, just like their counterparts at more affluent colleges.

YES on PROP 3: Enshrine the right to marry in the CA constitution

In 2008, California voters passed a constitutional amendment that added the language into our state’s constitution that marriage is between “a man and a woman.” We know that this type of non-inclusive, heteronormative language hurts 2SLGBTQIA+ communities and has no place in our state constitution.

We’re excited that voters have a chance to take out this exclusionary language from our state’s top governing document and instead replace it with language that guarantees marriage as a fundamental right to everyone – regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. Almost 3 million Californians identify as LGBT. It’s time that California’s state constitution lets go of archaic ideas of what marriage looks like and includes same-sex couples in our definition of marriage.

While marriage equality is an important issue, we also know that people in the LGBQ-TGNC community face far more serious barriers and discrimination than not being able to get married. We must focus our attention on HIV/AIDS prevention, combating police brutality, protecting gender-affirming healthcare, and preserving gender and sexual orientation education to further the rights of people who identify as 2SLGBTQIA+.

YES on PROP 4: Fund environmental justice

With climate change and environmental racism an existential crisis to us all, and especially to low-income and BIPOC communities, we must take immediate action to invest in environmental protection. Prop 4 would allow California to borrow $10 billion to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, and flood protection projects.

Over 1 million Californians do not have easy access to safe, affordable, and clean drinking water. This bond money would help change that by funding projects to keep toxic pollution out of our water and improve air quality. The funding would also be used for wildfire protection, protecting the coast from sea level rise, and addressing extreme heat, all problems that are on the rise as the climate crisis is exacerbated.

At least 40% of the money in this bond would go towards projects that address issues faced by low-income communities, which is particularly important since they often bear the brunt of climate change.

Living in a safe and clean environment is a basic human right. A YES vote on Prop 4 will help ensure that right for communities throughout our state, even as the climate crisis gets worse.

YES on PROP 5: Make it easier to fund housing and other community projects

Local bonds – or money that our local governments borrow – help us fund critical solutions to problems that working-class communities and communities of color face. But the way state law is now, any new bond has to get support from two-thirds of voters instead of a simple majority, 50%+1. This makes it harder to secure this critical funding.

Our cities and counties should have the tools we need to improve our neighborhoods and address community needs. If Prop 5 passes, it will be easier for local governments to borrow money to fund affordable housing and permanent supportive housing, public infrastructure projects to protect property from sea level rise, control floods, improve streets and highways, expand broadband internet access, and build more local hospitals, community parks, recreation facilities, and public libraries. We’re recommending a YES on Prop 5 so cities can utilize all the tools in their toolkits to give community members what we need to thrive.

YES on PROP 6: Ban slavery in California

In our state constitution, slavery is prohibited except as punishment for a crime. This discriminatory language reflects the troubling notion that people who are incarcerated are less than human and not deserving of basic rights like the rest of us. Considering that a disproportionate number of incarcerated people are Black, Latinx, and Indigenous, the racist implications of this language comes to light. Advocates have called this line in our state constitution an extension of slavery, granting our state the power to force incarcerated people to perform labor with nearly zero pay, harsh working conditions, and without a say of what kind of work they do. This type of labor wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere else, and it shouldn’t be acceptable in our carceral system either.

This November, California voters have the opportunity to remove this discriminatory language from our state constitution and ban forced prison labor by voting YES on Prop 6.

Most people who are forced to do labor in prisons get paid between $0.08-0.74 an hour, a wage that would sound the alarm bells if it were being paid to any other employees and bring lawsuits against any other employers. While the measure doesn’t guarantee an improvement in the pay scale for people who are incarcerated, it opens up a possibility that they would be paid minimum wage for the work they did. What Prop 6 would guarantee is that workers wouldn’t be forced to perform work they didn’t want to.

Voters in Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont recently passed ballot measures to ban involuntary servitude in their states. Let’s not get stuck in the past. It’s time for California to end every form of slavery once and for all. YES on Prop 6.

YES on PROP 32: Raise the state minimum wage to $18/hour

The last time California raised its minimum wage was in 2016. And we don’t need to tell you that the cost of everything – housing, gas, food, tuition – has gone up in the past 8 years. And the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. By raising the minimum wage to $18/hour, more Californians will be able to pay their bills, afford housing, get the healthcare they need, and even seek a higher education without taking on mountains of debt. We’ll also be sending a message that all labor is skilled, all labor is important, and all labor deserves a thriving wage.

California currently has the 8th highest income inequality in the country, which pushes many working-class households into poverty. Instead of punishing people for being poor through harsh crime measures, Prop 32 will help make sure that more Californians have what they need to succeed, getting to the root cause of why crime happens in the first place.

YES on PROP 33: Make it easier for Californians to have rent control

Many of us struggle to pay rent. California has the 2nd highest monthly rent rate and San Francisco has the 3rd highest one-bedroom rent rate in the country, with an average one-bedroom apartment costing nearly $3000.

For too long, greedy developers and corporate landlords have dictated the housing market, leaving working-class communities to foot bills that we could never afford with our wages.

A key solution to our affordable housing crisis is rent control. This November, voters will get a chance to make it easier for local governments to put caps on how much landlords can increase the rent for tenants. Prop 33 would repeal a state law that bans local governments from capping rent on certain units, giving room to better control rent spikes.

We all deserve to stay in the places we call home but with sky-high rent increases, working-class families and community members are getting pushed out of their homes. Let’s make it easier for local governments to cap rent increases and allow working people to afford their rent.

NO on PROP 34: Make it harder to pass rent control

Prop 34 would require California healthcare providers who meet specific criteria to spend at least 98% of profits from drug sale revenue on direct patient care. It appears only one organization would meet the criteria required to abide by the measure: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

This measure, backed by the real estate industry, is a veiled attack on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation who has put a lot of money into supporting rent control efforts in recent years. Meant to deceive voters under the guise of being about healthcare, Prop 34 will prevent the AIDS Foundation from having funding to put forward rent control measures in the future.

Don’t fall for this tricky anti-tenant measure, vote NO on Prop 34.

NEUTRAL on PROP 35: Change how lawmakers spend health care tax revenue

While Prop 35 would help raise more money for Medi-Cal, a health insurance plan for low-income and undocumented Californians, there are also some concerns community groups have raised about this measure. If Prop 35 were to pass, community voices and elected officials would have less of a say in how a certain tax on health insurance providers is spent. Decisions about this health insurance tax revenue would be made by hospital CEOs, insurance executives, and doctors.

While Prop 35 has good intentions and would help fund a health insurance plan that over 15 million Californians depend on for health care, we are concerned about community voices being cut out of the process of how this health care tax revenue.

The money that Prop 35 would generate would be raised through a permanent tax on certain health insurance providers without imposing any taxes on individuals. The measure would ensure that the money is used for its intended purpose – to fund Medi-Cal – by preventing lawmakers from rerouting the funds towards something else and requiring that 99% of the funding to go directly to patient care.

The funding raised would be used to hire more first responders and paramedics to reduce emergency response times, address workforce shortages, expand access to preventative health care, reduce wait times in emergency rooms, and for specific care such as family planning, cancer treatment, and mental health treatment.

Because of the conflicting nature of some of the impacts of Prop 35 and the fact that our members’ core campaigns don’t focus on healthcare issues, we are not taking a position on Prop 35.

NO on PROP 36: Rollback progressive criminal justice reform

It’s no secret that crime has been at the top of Californians’ minds for years now. No matter our zipcode, background, or political party, we all want to feel safe when we go out into our neighborhoods. That’s why, it’s understandable that quick fixes like Prop 36 to address complex issues like public safety may seem appealing. But this dangerous measure would do nothing to deal with why crime happens in the first place. Instead, it would further the harm done to communities of color by making mass incarceration and overcrowding in prisons and jails worse.

The revolving door that is mass incarceration has for too long worsened public safety in our state. Putting people in jails and prisons does not solve social problems like income inequality, lack of affordable housing, and overdoses. In fact, it only places them in an endless cycle of recidivism, robbing them of the ability to live a life where they can thrive by labeling them as a felon. Once someone has a felony – which would become easier under Prop 36 – they have a harder time getting a job or finding housing, taking away their means of surviving in our world. For many people, this means getting stuck in the cycle of going in and out of incarceration; at best making no improvement to our crime rates, at worst, exacerbating crime. And this failed attempt to tackle crime would cost our state hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

Not only would this measure be ineffective, it would also further the harm done to BIPOC communities, similar to that of the failed War on Drugs which caused lasting pain and suffering that is still felt today, especially by Black and Latinx communities. Prop 36 would take us back to days of harsh crime policies that voters had already signaled they moved away from when they passed Prop 47 in 2014 – the policy that this measure aims to repeal.

What you won’t hear about from people trying to undo the progress on criminal justice reform is how well Prop 47 has worked over the past 10 years to actually get community members back on their feet by investing in real solutions to crime. The money saved by not incarcerating people for low-level crimes has been put to good use:

It wouldn’t have been possible for this money to be diverted towards these life-changing programs if Prop 47 hadn’t passed. Now, Prop 36 is threatening to take away all this funding for programs and instead waste taxpayer money on locking people up which does nothing to stop crime from happening.

Californians deserve real answers to crime, not just a reactionary, haphazardly-designed measure that would only take us backwards in the progress we’ve made with criminal justice reform and fail to address the root causes of crime. NO on Prop 36.