A number of propositions are on the ballot in California’s general election of November 5. The Peace & Freedom Party endorses a YES vote on Proposition 3 and NO votes on Proposition 2 and 4. Our reasoning is as follows.
• Proposition 2: Vote NO—Against $10 billion for bond financing
This proposition would authorize the state to borrow $8.5 billion for K‑12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges for building and other capital improvements. It does not pay salaries or provide books and other program needs.
The Peace and Freedom Party generally opposes bond financing because bonds benefit wealthy investors at the expense of working-class people. Vote NO on Proposition 2.
• Proposition 3: Vote YES—Affirm Marriage Equality
The California Constitution continues to have language stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. But marriage equality has been the law in California since June 28, 2013.
On November 5, 2008, voters in California passed Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Californians have woken up since that time, and now have a chance to show it.
The Peace and Freedom Party has always supported full rights for the LGBTQ community. But we have seen that we cannot rely on the courts to consistently defend our rights. Vote YES on Proposition 3 and stay vigilant.
• Proposition 4: Vote NO—Against $10 billion bond for
Note: Most of this article is adapted from the Alameda County Green Party voter guide. Unlike the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party opposes all bond-related measures on the November 2024 ballot. The fact that the Greens oppose this “environmental” ballot prop is telling.
California and the rest of the world is running out of time to meaningfully and effectively respond to the climate crisis. The chief action required is a rapid, orderly, and equity-centered phase-out of fossil fuels with a just transition for the oil and gas industry workforce, their families, and communities. Prop 4 does little to nothing to advance this core need.
Prop 4 is the result of the California Legislature’s state budget negotiations that resulted in the enactment of Senate Bill 638, The Climate Resiliency and Flood Protection Bond Act of 2024.
The Legislature is turning to the general public to make up for the nearly $10 billion in climate funding that was cut or deferred to future years in the current state budget deficit environment. It is important to note that there is no guarantee that funding deferred to future years will ever be restored. It is more appropriate to view those deferrals as budget cuts. Prop 4 will not make up all of the funding that was cut, and in fact, it fails to allocate funding at all for some key climate actions—for example, substantial cuts were made to the clean transportation budget, and Prop 4 includes nothing for transportation, which accounts for roughly half of all California’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The clean energy component of Prop 4 prioritizes large-scale electricity generation technologies and transmission that benefits big for-profit utilities like PG&E that rake in billions in profits every year. Prop 4 includes nothing to support the evolution toward a democratized energy system—community-owned or -controlled, decentralized, clean energy resources.
Carbon dioxide sequestration is a critically important tool to remove legacy climate pollution from the atmosphere. Doing so is necessary to keep global temperatures in check. Although Prop 4 includes funding for natural and working lands, resilience and adaptation is prioritized over carbon dioxide sequestration.
Even if all of the allocations in Prop 4 were precisely what is needed for climate action, they should not be funded by issuing bonds. Saddling all California taxpayers, regardless of income, with the $6 to $9 billion in financing that will include precisely $0.00 for climate action is an outrage that should be roundly rejected. Consider that billions in interest and financing charges will go to the very bankers and other financial institutions that are complicit along with the polluting corporations in creating the problem in the first place.
The measures in Prop 4 should be paid for by the companies that are responsible for the lion’s share of the climate pollution—the oil and gas industry. That industry consistently rakes in billions in dollars in profits each year and uses millions of those dollars to warp the Legislature away from common sense climate legislation.
Placing a general obligation bond on the ballot to make up for budget cuts is not a good way to manage a state budget. Consistent and adequate funding will be required every year for decades to come to effectively mitigate the climate problem. The Legislature should go back to the drawing board and look in places where the money actually is: excessive corporate polluter profits and California’s wealthy people. The state should enact “Polluter Pays” legislation to create a climate superfund that can help pay for impacts of oil and gas pollution and support the transition to a clean energy economy. Vote NO on Proposition 4.