Ballot Guide Lab · v2 · frozen responses

Read the answers.
Rate independently.

45 answers from the revised voter questions, generated on October 11, 2026. Model labels and AI judge ratings are omitted from this viewer. Questions, visible answers and raw outputs are preserved exactly.

Human review is still pending · 0/45.

Download the blank v2 workbook. Use the same output ID to record your rating. Read the official pages and source roles; score before viewing the results comparison. All measures refer to California’s November 2024 election.

Reference caveat: the school/community-college allocation split is on PDF page 15; some frozen checkpoints list page 16. Read the retrieved page-15 passage too.

Choose a question45 answers

O001 · V2-09 · Everyday

I thought shoplifting under $950 wasn't a felony. Would this change that?

Voter-visible answer

No, Proposition 36 does not change shoplifting under $950 from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, it does increase penalties for repeat offenders. If you have two or more prior convictions for certain theft crimes, shoplifting under $950 becomes a felony punishable by up to three years in jail or prison. This law also requires that sentences for selling hard drugs be served in prison rather than county jail.

PDF page 58 ↗ · PDF page 59 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

Explain that qualifying prior theft convictions matter. Do not endorse the blanket premise that every theft under $950 is never a felony, or that every such theft would become a felony. Preserve the repeat-offense conditions.

PDF page 58

PROPOSITION ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR 36 CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 126 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov. • Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950—both currently chargeable only as misdemeanors—with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, as applicable. Defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed. • Increases sentences for other specifed drug and theft crimes. • Increased prison sentences may reduce savings that currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K–12 schools, and crime victims; any remaining savings may be used for new felony treatment program. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT: • Increased state criminal justice costs, likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to an increase in the prison population. • Increased local criminal justice costs, likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to county jail, community supervision, and court- mandated mental health and drug treatment workload. 36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND PUNISHMENT DEPENDS ON SERIOUSNESS OF CRIME AND CRIMINAL HISTORY Punishment for Felonies. A felony is the most serious type of crime. People can be sentenced to county jail or state prison for felonies, depending on the crime and their criminal history. In some cases, people can be supervised in the community by a county probation ofcer instead of serving some or all of their sentence in jail or prison. This is called county community supervision. The length of a sentence mostly depends on the crime. For example, murder can be punished by 15 years or more in prison. In contrast, selling drugs can be punished by up to fve years in jail or prison, depending on the drug. Sentences can also be lengthened due to details of the crime. For example, sentences for selling certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) can be lengthened based on the amount sold. Punishment for Misdemeanors. A misdemeanor is a less serious crime. Examples include assault and drug possession. People can be sentenced to county jail, county community supervision, and/or a fne for 58 | Title and Summary / Analysis

PDF page 59

PROPOSITIONALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST misdemeanors. Sentences can be up to one year in jail. PROPOSITION 47 REDUCED PUNISHMENTS FOR SOME THEFT AND DRUG CRIMES In 2014, Proposition 47 changed some theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. For example, shoplifting (stealing items worth $950 or less from a store) and drug possession generally became misdemeanors. PROPOSAL Proposition 36 makes several key changes related to punishments for theft and drug crimes. First, it increases punishment for some of these crimes. Second, it creates a new treatment- focused court process for some drug possession crimes. Third, it requires courts to warn people convicted of selling or providing illegal drugs to others that they can be charged with murder if they keep doing so and someone dies. INCREASES PUNISHMENT FOR SOME THEFT AND DRUG CRIMES Proposition 36 increases punishment for some theft and drug crimes in three ways: • Turns Some Misdemeanors Into Felonies. For example, currently, theft of items worth $950 or less is generally a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 makes this crime a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, CONTINUED or carjacking). The sentence would be up to three years in county jail or state prison. These changes undo some of the punishment reductions in Proposition 47. • Lengthens Some Felony Sentences. For example, Proposition 36 allows felony sentences for theft or damage of property to be lengthened by up to three years if three or more people committed the crime together. • Requires Some Felonies Be Served in Prison. For example, as discussed above, sentences for selling certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) can be lengthened based on the amount sold. Currently, these sentences are served in county jail or state prison depending on the person’s criminal history. Proposition 36 generally requires these sentences be served in prison. CREATES NEW COURT PROCESS FOR SOME DRUG POSSESSION CRIMES Proposition 36 allows people who possess illegal drugs to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony,” instead of a misdemeanor, in some cases. Specifcally, this applies to people who (1) possess certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) and (2) have two or more past convictions for some drug crimes (such as possessing or selling drugs). These people would generally 36 For the full text of Proposition 36, see page 126. Analysis | 59

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p059-c00 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p059-c01 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

36 increases punishment for some theft and drug crimes in three ways: • Turns Some Misdemeanors Into Felonies. For example, currently, theft of items worth $950 or less is generally a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 makes this crime a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, CONTINUED or carjacking). The sentence would be up to three years in county jail or state prison. These changes undo some of the punishment reductions in Proposition 47. • Lengthens Some Felony Sentences. For example, Proposition 36 allows felony sentences for theft or damage of property to be lengthened by up to three years if three or more people committed the crime together. • Requires Some Felonies Be Served in Prison. For example, as discussed above, sentences for selling certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine) can be lengthened based on the amount sold. Currently, these sentences are served in county jail or state prison depending on the person’s criminal history. Proposition 36 generally requires these sentences be served in prison. CREATES

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

trafcking, and repeat theft, and these serious crimes can lead to tough penalties. There is no loophole—under current law, fentanyl trafckers and repeat thieves can and do spend years behind bars. Prop. 36 doesn’t fx anything—it’s about funding prisons instead of treatment and prevention. This sends California backward, not forward. Don’t be fooled by false solutions. Vote No on Prop. 36. Cristine Soto DeBerry, Executive Director Prosecutors Alliance Action Don Frazier, Executive Director Reentry Providers Association of California David Guizar, Co-Founder Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice 62 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

CA2024-p128-c01 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

sentence a repeat offender to jail in appropriate cases, or to state prison if an offender is convicted four or more times of theft. (4) This act also authorizes judges to exercise their discretion to impose an enhanced penalty when an offender steals, damages, or destroys property by acting together with two or more offenders or by causing losses of $50,000 or more. By permitting discretion in these scenarios, judges will be able to fashion sentences that are appropriate for the crime committed, including so-called “smash and grabs” committed by mobs or large groups of people working together. (5) The value of property stolen in multiple thefts will be permitted to be added together so that in appropriate cases an offender may be charged with felony theft instead of petty theft. This provision addresses the problem of offenders who commit a series of thefts in which the property stolen during each theft has a value under the $950 felony theft threshold, in order to insulate themselves from felony charges. (6) Along with the hard drug provisions in this act, these

CA2024-p058-c00 · PDF page 58 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p128-c02 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

each theft has a value under the $950 felony theft threshold, in order to insulate themselves from felony charges. (6) Along with the hard drug provisions in this act, these theft law changes will stop the vicious cycle of hard drug users stealing to support their habits without legal consequences for their actions. SEC. 4. Section 11369 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 11369. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as Alexandra’s Law. (b) The court shall advise a person who is convicted of, or who pleads guilty or no contest to, a violation of Section 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, or 11379.6 involving a hard drug, of the following: “You are hereby advised that it is extremely dangerous and deadly to human life to illicitly manufacture, distribute, sell, furnish, administer, or give away any drugs in any form, including real or counterfeit drugs or pills. You can kill someone by engaging in this conduct. All drugs and counterfeit pills are dangerous to human life. These substances alone, or mixed,

Raw model output

No, Proposition 36 does not change shoplifting under $950 from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, it does increase penalties for repeat offenders. If you have two or more prior convictions for certain theft crimes, shoplifting under $950 becomes a felony punishable by up to three years in jail or prison. This law also requires that sentences for selling hard drugs be served in prison rather than county jail.

O002 · V2-12 · Difficult

If this school bond passes, how much would it add to my own tax bill each year?

Voter-visible answer

The proposed bond repayment would be about $500 million each year for 35 years. [CA2024-p016-c02]

PDF page 17 ↗ · PDF page 64 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

No invented individual tax bill. The PDF does not supply the necessary individual inputs.

PDF page 17

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. 2 2 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST education, health care, and prisons.) This would be less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. Since the state has to pay interest on the money it borrows, the total cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more (after adjusting for infation) than if the state paid up front with money it already has. Unclear Efect on Local Costs Statewide. The availability of state bond funds could afect some districts’ local costs. For example, some districts could respond by seeking new local bonds to help them meet project matching requirements. These districts would see an increase in their local costs. In contrast, other CONTINUED districts could respond by borrowing less because the state funds could pay costs districts otherwise would have covered. These districts would see a decrease in their local costs. Overall, the efect on local costs statewide is unclear. Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access- resources/measure-contributions/2024- ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list of committees primarily formed to support or oppose this measure. Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/ top-contributors.html to access the committee’s top 10 contributors. For the full text of Proposition 2, see page 70. Analysis | 17

PDF page 64

64 | Overview of State Bond Debt OVERVIEW OF STATE BOND DEBT PREPARED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST This section describes the state’s bond debt. It also discusses how the bond measures on the ballot, if approved by voters, would afect state costs to repay bonds. State Bonds and Their Costs What Are Bonds? Bonds are a way that governments borrow money. The state government uses bonds primarily to pay for infrastructure projects that have a long useful life, such as bridges, dams, prisons, parks, schools, and ofce buildings. The state sells bonds to investors to receive up-front funding for these projects and then must repay the investors over a period of time, typically a couple of decades. This is very similar to the way a family pays of a mortgage on their home. What Are the Costs of Bond Financing? The state’s total cost for a project is more if it pays with bonds than if it pays up front with money it already has. This is because it has to pay interest on the bonds. The amount of additional cost depends on the interest rate and how long it takes to repay the bonds. For example, if the state uses a 30-year bond with a 4 percent interest rate to pay for a project, the total cost is about 15 percent more (after adjusting for infation) than if the state paid up front with money it already has. Most Bonds Must Be Approved by Voters. The California Constitution requires that most new bonds be approved by voters. These bonds usually are repaid from the state General Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.) Bonds and State Spending Current Amount of Bond Debt. The state currently is repaying about $80 billion of bonds. In addition, the voters and the Legislature previously have approved about $35 billion of bonds that have not yet been sold. Most of these bonds are expected to be sold in the next several years. The state currently is paying about $6 billion each year from the General Fund to repay bonds. The state will continue to pay a similar amount over the next few years. This is about 3 percent of the state’s annual General Fund revenue, which is lower than the historical average of about 4 percent. This Election’s Impact on Debt Payments. There are two bond measures on this ballot: Proposition 2 and Proposition 4. Proposition 2 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to build new facilities and renovate existing facilities at school districts and community colleges. The cost to repay this bond would be about $500 million each year for 35 years. Proposition 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to pay for various natural resources and climate activities. The cost to repay this bond would be about $400 million each year for 40 years. The cost to repay both bonds would total about $900 million each year, which is about one-half of 1 percent of the state’s annual General Fund revenue.

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

project costs from 50 percent to as much as 55 percent. Proposition 2 also increases the state’s share of renovation project costs from 60 percent to as much as 65 percent for these school districts. In general, the state would pay a higher share of project costs for school districts that have lower assessed property values and have a higher share of their students who are low income, English learners, or foster youth. Allows More School Districts to Apply for Additional State Funding. Proposition 2 allows school districts that are unable to raise at least $15 million from local bonds (up from $5 million) to apply for additional state funding. This amount would increase by infation in future years. FISCAL EFFECTS Increased State Costs of About $500 Million Each Year for 35 Years to Repay the Bond. The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $500 million each year (annually) over a 35-year period. Payments would be made from the state General Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services,

CA2024-p019-c01 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

points out that bonds are borrowed money that must be paid back, plus interest, even if that means cutting vital programs to do it. Governor Newsom recently declared a budget emergency because California spends more than it takes in. Children in school today will be drowning in new debt for decades if Prop. 2 passes. Politicians want to borrow $10 billion from Wall Street and make Californians pay it back with interest, forcing taxpayers to pay up to $10 billion for debt service payments. California Is Out of Money, Californians Are Over-taxed, Prop. 2 Will Make Things Worse California, with rampant infation and the highest gas and graduated income taxes in the nation, already has over $109 billion of outstanding and unissued bonds alongside almost $200 billion of unfunded pension liabilities and retiree medical benefts—over a quarter trillion dollars. Californians will have to shoulder a greater increase in their tax burden paying of our bonds and related interest payments. Our bond debt alone is already $2,460 per person. Sacramento politicians overspend, issue bonds, and punish us with tax hikes on

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

specifc projects to fund. Proposition 2 requires districts to complete certain tasks to help ensure bond funds are spent as intended. Some Renovation Funding Available for Certain Types of School Projects. Proposition 2 allows up to $115 million in renovation funds to be used for reducing lead levels in water at public school sites. Proposition 2 also allows school districts to receive extra renovation funding to build a new classroom or renovate an existing classroom that would be used for transitional kindergarten. (Beginning with the 2025–26 school year, all four-year olds will be eligible for CONTINUED a year of transitional kindergarten before entering kindergarten.) In certain cases, school districts also could receive extra renovation funding to expand or build a new gymnasium, multipurpose room, library, or school kitchen. Increases State Share of Costs for Certain School Districts. For some school districts, Proposition 2 increases the state’s share of new construction project costs from 50 percent to as much as 55 percent. Proposition 2 also increases the state’s share of renovation project costs from 60 percent to as much as 65

CA2024-p064-c03 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

million each year for 35 years. Proposition 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to pay for various natural resources and climate activities. The cost to repay this bond would be about $400 million each year for 40 years. The cost to repay both bonds would total about $900 million each year, which is about one-half of 1 percent of the state’s annual General Fund revenue.

CA2024-p074-c00 · PDF page 74 · text of proposed laws

PROPOSITION 2 CONTINUED to the extent necessary to fund the related apportionments for the purposes described in this chapter that are expressly authorized by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Pursuant to that legislative direction, the committee shall determine by resolution whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue bonds authorized pursuant to this chapter in order to carry out the purposes described in this chapter and, if so, the amount of bonds to be issued and sold. Successive issues of bonds may be authorized and sold to carry out those actions progressively, and it is not necessary that all of the bonds authorized to be issued be sold at any one time. 101445. There shall be collected each year and in the same manner and at the same time as other state revenue is collected, in addition to the ordinary revenues of the state, a sum in an amount required to pay the principal of, and interest on, the bonds each year. It is the duty of all officers charged by law with any duty in

CA2024-p064-c02 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

currently is repaying about $80 billion of bonds. In addition, the voters and the Legislature previously have approved about $35 billion of bonds that have not yet been sold. Most of these bonds are expected to be sold in the next several years. The state currently is paying about $6 billion each year from the General Fund to repay bonds. The state will continue to pay a similar amount over the next few years. This is about 3 percent of the state’s annual General Fund revenue, which is lower than the historical average of about 4 percent. This Election’s Impact on Debt Payments. There are two bond measures on this ballot: Proposition 2 and Proposition 4. Proposition 2 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to build new facilities and renovate existing facilities at school districts and community colleges. The cost to repay this bond would be about $500 million each year for 35 years. Proposition 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to pay for various natural resources and climate activities. The cost to repay this

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposed bond repayment would be about $500 million each year for 35 years.", "source_id": "CA2024-p016-c02", "quote": "The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $500 million each year (annually) over a 35-year period."}], "missing": ""}

O003 · V2-08 · Everyday

Will the minimum wage increase make everyday things more expensive?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 39 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

Some businesses likely would charge higher prices because of higher wage costs. The overall price increase likely would be smaller than one-half of 1 percent. This is an estimate, not a guaranteed change for every item or a personal shopping bill.

PDF page 39

PROPOSITIONRAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 32 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST FISCAL EFFECTS Fiscal Efects Depend on Economic Efects . Proposition 32 could have a wide range of economic efects: • Higher Wages. Workers who would have made less than $18 per hour would instead make $18 or more per hour by 2026. Higher minimum wages also tend to push up wages for other workers. This means that many workers making a bit more than $18 per hour also likely would get a raise. • Likely Higher Prices. Higher wages would increase costs for many businesses. Some businesses likely would charge customers higher prices. The overall price increase from Proposition 32 likely would be smaller than one-half of 1 percent. • Likely Lower Profts . The costs of higher wages likely would reduce some businesses’ profts. • Efect on Jobs. The number of jobs in the state could go up or down. This change likely would be smaller than one-quarter of 1 percent. Government Costs Could Go Up or Down. Proposition 32 would increase state and local government costs in some ways but would decrease them in other ways: • Higher Government Costs to Pay for Workers. The state and many local governments would have higher costs to pay their employees. They also would have higher costs to pay for work done by workers who are not their employees. • Savings From Lower Enrollment in Health and Human Services Programs. Proposition 32 would change the number of people enrolled in health and human CONTINUED services programs (such as California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal) because it would change people’s incomes. These enrollment changes likely would reduce state and local government costs. Combining these two pieces, total state and local government costs could go up or down. This change likely would not exceed the high hundreds of millions of dollars each year (annually). (Total state and local government spending in California exceeds $500 billion annually.) The change in costs to the state’s General Fund likely would be less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.) Lower Revenues. Proposition 32 would afect income tax and sales tax revenues because it would change incomes and prices. Overall, the proposition likely would reduce state and local government revenues. Revenues would be lower mainly due to lower incomes for business owners. The net revenue loss likely would not exceed a few hundred million dollars annually. Last year, total state and local revenue from these taxes was about $200 billion. Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access- resources/measure-contributions/2024- ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list of committees primarily formed to support or oppose this measure. Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/ top-contributors.html to access the committee’s top 10 contributors. 32 For the full text of Proposition 32, see page 97. Analysis | 39

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p041-c03 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Get the facts at StopProp32.com, and vote NO ON PROPOSITION 32! Jot Condie, President California Restaurant Association Jennifer Barrera, President California Chamber of Commerce Ron Fong, President California Grocers Association 32 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 32 ★ YES on PROPOSITION 32 means a RAISE for SERVICE, ESSENTIAL, AND OTHER WORKERS to help them aford life’s basic needs. YES ON PROPOSITION 32 means a RAISE for SINGLE MOMS to help them aford life’s basic needs. YES ON PROPOSITION 32 means CLOSING THE GENDER PAY GAP for over a million working women. The goods and services you buy have become more expensive because CORPORATIONS ARE MAKING RECORD PROFITS! CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS HAVE INCREASED 100% since the year 2000. The STOCK MARKET has repeatedly made ALL-TIME HIGHS this year. CORPORATE LOBBYISTS who will MAKE MORE MONEY BY KEEPING WAGES LOW are trying to convince you that raising the minimum wage will increase the cost of living, but that’s false. Record corporate proft margins are what has increased the cost of living. Now, we have to RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO HELP

CA2024-p041-c00 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

PROPOSITIONRAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 32 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 32 ★ VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 32. PROPOSITION 32 INCREASES YOUR PERSONAL COSTS; MAKES CALIFORNIA’S HUGE BUDGET DEFICIT WORSE; PUNISHES SMALL BUSINESSES; COSTS JOBS; AND HURTS THE VERY WORKERS IT’S SUPPOSED TO HELP. PROPOSITION 32 MAKES OUR BUDGET DEFICIT WORSE BY BILLIONS EACH YEAR AND JEOPARDIZES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND EDUCATION California just experienced a $50 billion budget defcit. Many cities and counties face huge defcits as well. The independent fscal analysis of Prop. 32 in this same ballot pamphlet says a minimum wage increase will likely cost state and local governments billions of dollars EACH YEAR. That means two things. You paying higher taxes to make up the diference and cuts to important programs like K–12 education, public safety, healthcare, and getting homeless people of the streets. PROPOSITION 32 INCREASES PRICES FOR CALIFORNIANS WHEN WE CAN LEAST AFFORD IT The cost of living in California is too high. Prices are up more than 20% in the last three years for food, gas, utilities, healthcare, and clothing. Proposition 32

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

PROPOSITION RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. 32 INITIATIVE STATUTE. ★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 32 ★ Every Californian who works at least a full-time, 40-hour work week should be able to aford life’s basic needs. However, there are about 2 million Californians who are working full time, and more, but earn less than $18 per hour. Most of these Californians who earn less than $18 per hour are heads of their households. Most of these Californians who earn less than $18 per hour have kids. We can all agree that Californians who work hard, working full time or more, should not live in poverty. But that’s exactly how millions of Californians are living because their wages are too low to aford how expensive life has become in California. In addition, when people who work hard are paid wages that aren’t enough to cover life’s basic needs, a bigger burden is put on taxpayers to make up the diference that some corporations aren’t honoring. It is wrong for all the businesses that do right by their workers that some corporations are allowed

CA2024-p040-c02 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

of that spending boosts the economies of our local communities. That boosted spending creates more jobs in our communities, which makes everyone better of. It’s time that we make California a place that working families can aford. By raising the minimum wage to $18, Proposition 32 will directly better the lives of 2 million Californians who will get a raise and we will stimulate more spending in our communities that most need that boost. That boost will create more jobs and more prosperity for everyone. VOTE YES ON PROP. 32! Joe Sanberg, Anti-Poverty Advocate 32 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 32 ★ VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 32! Ballot measures shouldn’t be toys for multimillionaires. ONE PERSON ALONE—A MULTIMILLIONAIRE—IS BEHIND PROP. 32. One person alone wrote Prop. 32, spent millions getting it on the ballot, and wrote the argument for Prop. 32. SMALL BUSINESS AND WORKING FAMILY ADVOCATES DON’T WANT PROP. 32 Many of California’s leading voices for working families and small businesses didn’t even want Prop. 32 on the ballot, but this one author had to have

CA2024-p041-c01 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

IT The cost of living in California is too high. Prices are up more than 20% in the last three years for food, gas, utilities, healthcare, and clothing. Proposition 32 makes it even worse as it will increase costs on family-owned businesses who can least aford it and force small employers to increase prices for consumers to absorb the higher minimum wage. Looking at the new California fast-food minimum wage law, fast-food prices in California have gone up 7% in six months, the fastest in the nation. Some well-known “value meals” now cost over 40% more in California than the rest of the country. Prop. 32 brings these record-setting price increases to small restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, small retail shops, farmers, and more, so we’re going to see the same sticker shock everywhere. PROPOSITION 32 WILL HURT SMALL, FAMILY-OWNED BUSINESSES Proposition 32 imposes the same high minimum wage on small businesses as it does for large corporations. Small businesses are more vulnerable to the impact of this higher cost and could force these family-owned businesses in our neighborhoods and

CA2024-p097-c03 · PDF page 97 · text of proposed laws

PROPOSITION 32 This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends a section of the Labor Code; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. PROPOSED LAW THE LIVING WAGE ACT OF 2022 SECTION 1. Name. This act shall be known as the Living Wage Act of 2022. SEC. 2. Findings and Purpose. The people of California find and declare that: (a) The purpose of the Living Wage Act of 2022 (“the act”) is to ensure that workers receive wages that will financially support them and their families. (b) To achieve this purpose, the Living Wage Act of 2022 will increase the California minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2025 and in each year thereafter the minimum wage will be adjusted to keep pace with the cost of living in California. (c) For more than 12 years, the federal

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposed minimum wage increase would make everyday things more expensive.", "source_id": "CA2024-p041-c00", "quote": "Proposition 32 INCREASES PRICES FOR CALIFORNIANS WHEN WE CAN LEAST AFFORD IT"}], "missing": ""}

O004 · V2-06 · Everyday

I work for a big company with about 100 employees. When would the $17 and $18 wages kick in?

Voter-visible answer

Employers with 26 or more employees would have $18 per hour starting January 1, 2025. [CA2024-p038-c02]

PDF page 38 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$17 immediately and $18 from January 1, 2025; correctly distinguish employer size.

PDF page 38

PROPOSITION RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. 32 INITIATIVE STATUTE. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 97 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov. • California’s minimum wage is currently $16 per hour. This measure increases that minimum, as follows: • Employers with 26 or more employees would pay $17 hourly for the remainder of 2024 and $18 hourly beginning on January 1, 2025. • Employers with 25 or fewer employees would pay $17 hourly beginning January 1, 2025, and $18 hourly beginning January 1, 2026. • Thereafter, as existing law provides, the minimum wage annually adjusts for inflation. • In addition to the generally applicable minimum wage described above, current laws establish a higher minimum wage in specified industries. This measure does not amend those laws. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT: • State and local government costs could increase or decrease. This change likely would not exceed the high hundreds of millions of dollars annually. • State and local tax revenues likely would decrease. This revenue loss likely would not exceed a few hundred million dollars annually. 32 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND State and Local Laws Set Minimum Wages. Employers must pay their workers at least the minimum wage. California’s minimum wage currently is $16 per hour. Some local governments have higher minimum wages. Minimum wage laws do not apply to independent contractors and other self-employed people. Infation Adjustments Under Current Law. Prices tend to go up over time. These rising prices are called “infation. ” The state adjusts its minimum wage every year based on infation. Each adjustment matches U.S. infation, except in two cases: • If infation is negative, the adjustment is zero. • If infation exceeds 3.5 percent, the adjustment is 3.5 percent. State Sets Higher Minimum Wages for Some Employers. State laws set higher minimum wages for employers in some industries. For example, most fast food restaurants must pay their workers at least $20 per hour. PROPOSAL Higher Minimum Wage in 2025. In 2025, California would have diferent minimum wages for employers of diferent sizes. Employers with 26 or more employees would have a minimum wage of $18 per hour. Employers with 25 or fewer employees would have a minimum wage of $17 per hour. Without Proposition 32, the minimum wage for all employees would be about $16.50 per hour. The proposition would not change any local or industry-specifc minimum wages. Minimum Wage $18 Per Hour in 2026. In 2026, the minimum wage would be $18 per hour for all employees. Without Proposition 32, it likely would be about $17 per hour. Infation Adjustments Paused Until 2027. The minimum wage would be adjusted for infation every year starting in 2027. These adjustments would follow the current rules described earlier. 38 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p038-c02 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

exceeds 3.5 percent, the adjustment is 3.5 percent. State Sets Higher Minimum Wages for Some Employers. State laws set higher minimum wages for employers in some industries. For example, most fast food restaurants must pay their workers at least $20 per hour. PROPOSAL Higher Minimum Wage in 2025. In 2025, California would have diferent minimum wages for employers of diferent sizes. Employers with 26 or more employees would have a minimum wage of $18 per hour. Employers with 25 or fewer employees would have a minimum wage of $17 per hour. Without Proposition 32, the minimum wage for all employees would be about $16.50 per hour. The proposition would not change any local or industry-specifc minimum wages. Minimum Wage $18 Per Hour in 2026. In 2026, the minimum wage would be $18 per hour for all employees. Without Proposition 32, it likely would be about $17 per hour. Infation Adjustments Paused Until 2027. The minimum wage would be adjusted for infation every year starting in 2027. These adjustments would follow the current rules described earlier. 38 | Title and Summary

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

on taxpayers to make up the diference that some corporations aren’t honoring. It is wrong for all the businesses that do right by their workers that some corporations are allowed to pay Californians such low wages that those workers are left needing taxpayer funded aid. Taxpayers should not be subsidizing some corporations that choose to pay extremely low wages and enabling them to keep the rest as excess proft for their owners. By raising the minimum wage to $18 per hour, Proposition 32 will bring a much-needed raise to 2 million California workers and create a more prosperous system where big corporations aren’t allowed to exploit smaller businesses, our communities, and our hardest working neighbors. Finally, when more Californians earn a fair wage for their work, our entire economy does better. Working people are better able to aford their rent, provide three meals per day for their kids, and all of that spending boosts the economies of our local communities. That boosted spending creates more jobs in our communities, which makes everyone better of. It’s time that we make California

CA2024-p038-c00 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p041-c02 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

small businesses as it does for large corporations. Small businesses are more vulnerable to the impact of this higher cost and could force these family-owned businesses in our neighborhoods and communities to shut down. PROPOSITION 32 COSTS JOBS Raising the minimum wage again sounds like something that would help workers struggling to make ends meet. Who doesn’t want workers to get paid more? It makes us feel good if we think we’re helping our fellow Californians out. But the reality has now been confrmed, raising the minimum wage, especially when we raise it TOO FAST, costs thousands of jobs, and when a worker loses a job, or the company goes out of business, the wage is ZERO DOLLARS PER HOUR. And this job loss especially impacts our vulnerable populations the most, with young African- American, Latino, and non-college educated workers trying to fnd their frst jobs facing the biggest burdens. Get the facts at StopProp32.com, and vote NO ON PROPOSITION 32! Jot Condie, President California Restaurant Association Jennifer Barrera, President California Chamber of Commerce Ron Fong, President California Grocers Association

CA2024-p098-c02 · PDF page 98 · text of proposed laws

January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, inclusive,—eleven dollars ($11) per hour. (C) From January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020, inclusive,—twelve dollars ($12) per hour. (D) From January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, inclusive,—thirteen dollars ($13) per hour. (E) From January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022, inclusive,—fourteen dollars ($14) per hour. (F) From January 1, 2023, and until adjusted by subdivision (c) to December 31, 2023, inclusive,— fifteen dollars ($15) per hour. (G) From January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, inclusive,—sixteen dollars ($16) per hour. 98 | Text of Proposed Laws (H) From January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025, inclusive,—seventeen dollars ($17) per hour. (I) From January 1, 2026, and until adjusted by subdivision (c)—eighteen dollars ($18) per hour. (3) For purposes of this subdivision, “employer” means any person who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person. For purposes of this subdivision, “employer” includes the state, political subdivisions of the state, and municipalities. (4) Employees who are

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "Employers with 26 or more employees would have $18 per hour starting January 1, 2025.", "source_id": "CA2024-p038-c02", "quote": "Employers with 26 or more employees would have a minimum wage of $18 per hour."}], "missing": ""}

O005 · V2-11 · Difficult

I'm worried about theft. Should I vote yes on Prop 36?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 36 targets repeat retail theft and fentanyl trafficking. Advocates argue it holds repeat offenders accountable and funds crime prevention. Opponents claim it wastes taxpayer money on prisons instead of treatment. The question asks if you should vote yes.

The pre-election guide does not supply this requested information.

Reference notes and official pages

No recommendation. Offer to explain effects of yes and no.

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

of millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars on methods that are proven to be inefcient and inefective. Voting for Prop. 36 would be a vote to cut money for treatment and victims and waste taxpayer dollars. Voting NO on Prop. 36 maintains serious penalties for drug trafcking and organized crime, and protects dedicated funding for treatment, crime prevention, and rehabilitation that successfully reduce crime and recidivism. VOTE NO ON PROP. 36 More info: StopProp36.com Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County William Lansdowne, Police Chief (ret.) City of San Diego Jess Nichol, Victim Advocate Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 36 ★ YES ON PROP. 36: BALANCED, RESPONSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO RISING CRIME California has a serious crime problem, and the politicians have failed to fx it. Prop. 36 is a tailored reform focused on the root causes of rising crime: • Repeat retail theft • Fentanyl trafcking • Drug addiction without incentives for treatment PROP. 36: TARGETED RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA’S CRIME CRISIS Prop. 36 increases penalties for smash-and-grab theft and serial thieves who victimize businesses

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c03 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

justice system fair and create efective tools for holding individuals accountable for their crimes and helping those who sufer from addiction to hard drugs get the necessary treatment to begin new lives. ”—Rev. Jonathan Moseley, Western Regional Director, National Action Network Los Angeles VOTE YES ON PROP. 36 FOR SAFER CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES Prop. 36 will toughen California’s laws on “smash-and-grab” theft and fentanyl trafcking. That’s why small businesses, law enforcement, social justice, crime victims’, and drug survivors’ advocates, along with 900,000 Californians support Prop. 36. Read it for yourself at VoteYesProp36.com. Gregory Totten, Chief Executive Ofcer California District Attorneys Association Harriet Salarno, Founder Crime Victims United Michael Hedges, President California Small Business Association 36 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 36 ★ Retail theft and fentanyl are real problems. Californians deserve real solutions. Prop. 36 is a false promise, not a fx. Prop. 36 will reignite the failed war on drugs, wasting billions on jails and prisons, and slashing crucial funding for crime prevention, treatment, victims, and rehabilitation. That will mean more crime, not less. Prop. 36 makes

CA2024-p062-c00 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c02 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

dying of drug overdoses than car accidents. Yet fentanyl is treated less seriously than methamphetamine, heroin, PCP, and cocaine when ofenders are armed with a frearm. Prop. 36 will close this loophole while increasing penalties for trafcking large quantities and when a trafcker sells drugs to someone who dies as a result. “Fentanyl has killed too many people, yet trafckers can avoid the consequences. We need Prop. 36 because no parent should ever have to bury another child killed by fentanyl poisoning. ”—Gina McDonald, Co-Founder, Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Deaths YES ON PROP. 36: HOLD CAREER CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE AND ENFORCE DRUG TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS In California, criminal justice reforms have advanced equity and reduced incarceration rates. But the unintended consequences of these policies include an epidemic of drug use, trafcking, and repeat retail theft because the people committing these crimes don’t face any serious consequences. “Prop. 36 will make our justice system fair and create efective tools for holding individuals accountable for their crimes and helping those who sufer from addiction to hard drugs get the necessary treatment to begin

CA2024-p062-c01 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

charges if a defendant has two or more prior theft convictions. “California needs Prop. 36’s tougher laws against smash- and-grab thefts so we can keep small businesses open in every community. ”—Robert Rivinius, Executive Director, Family Business Association of California YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER PROSECUTION OF SERIAL THIEVES Under current California law, thieves can get away with the equivalent of a TRAFFIC TICKET if the value of items stolen in one instance is $950 or less. That means someone can steal an UNLIMITED amount—so long as each individual crime is not over $950—and likely avoid jail time and even arrest. “Prop. 36 will allow prosecutors to combine the value of items stolen from multiple thefts and increase accountability for serial thieves. ”—Mike Hestrin, Riverside County District Attorney YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER PENALTIES FOR FENTANYL TRAFFICKING Fentanyl is one of the top killers in California, with more young people dying of drug overdoses than car accidents. Yet fentanyl is treated less seriously than methamphetamine, heroin, PCP, and cocaine when ofenders are armed with a frearm. Prop. 36 will close

Raw model output

Proposition 36 targets repeat retail theft and fentanyl trafficking. Advocates argue it holds repeat offenders accountable and funds crime prevention. Opponents claim it wastes taxpayer money on prisons instead of treatment. The question asks if you should vote yes.

O006 · V2-15 · Difficult

How much of the school bond is for community colleges, and will my local college get any?

Voter-visible answer

The proposed $1.5 billion bond for community college facilities would go to public education from Proposition 2. [CA2024-p018-c04]

PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$1.5 billion is allocated to community colleges. The guide does not establish whether the unspecified local college will receive funds or how much. Answer the supported amount, explicitly mark the local allocation as missing, and avoid claiming this college is guaranteed funding. Do not withhold the supported amount.

PDF page 16

2 PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 2 COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST bond amount) is split among four types of facility projects. For new construction and renovation projects, school districts would apply for and be awarded funding mainly on a frst-come, frst-served basis. The state would award the career technical education and charter school funds through a competitive application process. A small portion of new construction and renovation funds must be set aside for small school districts. Unlike for public schools, the $1.5 billion for community colleges (or 15 percent of the total bond amount) is not split in a prescribed way among specifc types of projects. Community college bond funds may be used for any mix of new buildings, renovations, land purchases, and equipment. Community colleges would prepare a plan listing their statewide project priorities. The Governor and the Legislature would select specifc projects to fund. Proposition 2 requires districts to complete certain tasks to help ensure bond funds are spent as intended. Some Renovation Funding Available for Certain Types of School Projects. Proposition 2 allows up to $115 million in renovation funds to be used for reducing lead levels in water at public school sites. Proposition 2 also allows school districts to receive extra renovation funding to build a new classroom or renovate an existing classroom that would be used for transitional kindergarten. (Beginning with the 2025–26 school year, all four-year olds will be eligible for CONTINUED a year of transitional kindergarten before entering kindergarten.) In certain cases, school districts also could receive extra renovation funding to expand or build a new gymnasium, multipurpose room, library, or school kitchen. Increases State Share of Costs for Certain School Districts. For some school districts, Proposition 2 increases the state’s share of new construction project costs from 50 percent to as much as 55 percent. Proposition 2 also increases the state’s share of renovation project costs from 60 percent to as much as 65 percent for these school districts. In general, the state would pay a higher share of project costs for school districts that have lower assessed property values and have a higher share of their students who are low income, English learners, or foster youth. Allows More School Districts to Apply for Additional State Funding. Proposition 2 allows school districts that are unable to raise at least $15 million from local bonds (up from $5 million) to apply for additional state funding. This amount would increase by infation in future years. FISCAL EFFECTS Increased State Costs of About $500 Million Each Year for 35 Years to Repay the Bond. The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $500 million each year (annually) over a 35-year period. Payments would be made from the state General Fund. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including 16 | Analysis

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p018-c01 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

from our schools; and protecting students from extreme heat. MAKING SCHOOLS SAFER Too many of our local schools lack adequate safety and security protections. Prop. 2 will make students safer by funding door locks, emergency communications and security systems, fre alarms, smoke detectors, and more. PREPARING STUDENTS FOR 21st CENTURY CAREERS Prop. 2 will upgrade local schools and community colleges including science, engineering, career technical, and vocational education classrooms; labs; and learning technology. It will help more students get job training, technical knowledge, and specialized skills to compete for good-paying jobs in the competitive economy. INCREASING ACCESS TO AN AFFORDABLE COLLEGE EDUCATION Prop. 2 will increase access to quality, afordable higher education for all Californians—allowing more students to start their college education, earn college credits, and transfer to a four-year university without crushing debt. HELPING RETURNING VETERANS Prop. 2 helps local community colleges upgrade facilities to expand veteran services, job training, and support for the tens of thousands of California’s returning veterans who rely on their local community college for job training and to complete their education and enter the

CA2024-p015-c01 · PDF page 15 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

guide. Over the past 20 years, the bulk of state facility funding for schools and community colleges has come from voter-approved bonds (a total of $31.8 billion). Recently, the state provided an additional $4.6 billion in other funding for school and community college facilities. Almost all of this funding has already been awarded for specifc projects. Districts Usually Pay Their Share of Costs Using Local Bonds. School and community college districts tend to pay CONTINUED their share of project costs using local bonds. Districts must get at least 55 percent of their voters to approve the sale of local bonds. State law limits the total amount of local bonds that school and community college districts may issue. These limits are based on the total assessed property value within the district. School districts that are unable to raise at least $5 million under these limits may apply for additional state funding. Over the past 20 years, voters approved $181 billion in local bonds for public school and community college facility projects. PROPOSAL New Bond for Public School and Community College Facilities.

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

to cut funding for public education. WE CAN’T WAIT ANY LONGER Too many California students attend schools with leaky roofs, unsafe drinking water, mold, asbestos, lead paint, and lead pipes. There is a massive backlog of local school repairs but no state funding available for them. Prop. 2 provides the funding so our schools get the upgrades they desperately need, ensuring students have safe, healthy schools to support learning. TOUGH ACCOUNTABILITY AND TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS Prop. 2 puts local voters in control of how school bond monies are spent. It requires public disclosure of all state and local spending, annual audits, and tough accounting standards. Additionally, it protects taxpayers from higher local property taxes by providing state matching funds to local communities so they do not need to raise even more money to fund the full cost of school repairs and upgrades. Prop. 2 is a bipartisan measure that will help more students get a quality education, increase access to an afordable college education, and improve job training opportunities for veterans and students. Vote YES on Prop. 2. Susan Dixon, State

CA2024-p018-c02 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

training, and support for the tens of thousands of California’s returning veterans who rely on their local community college for job training and to complete their education and enter the civilian workforce. RESTORING SCHOOLS AFFECTED BY WILDFIRES, EARTHQUAKES, AND OTHER NATURAL DISASTERS Prop. 2 provides immediate assistance to schools that are damaged or destroyed by wildfres, foods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters so they can quickly get up and running. PROTECTING LOCAL CONTROL OVER EVERY PROJECT Prop. 2 protects local control by requiring that its funding only be used for projects approved by local school and community college districts, with local community input. All of the money will be controlled and spent locally, where taxpayers have a voice in deciding how these funds are best used to improve their neighborhood schools, without increasing local property taxes. FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WITH TOUGH TAXPAYER ACCOUNTABILITY Prop. 2 requires public disclosure of every dollar, tough independent fnancial audits, and strict limits on administrative and bureaucratic costs. These protections ensure that funding is spent directly on schools and used efciently and as promised. Our schools

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

guaranteed to go to public education from Proposition 98. Under the funding formula used in Prop. 2, school districts must provide a “local match” of funds to receive money from the bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. PROP. 2 IGNORES DECLINING ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES It’s reckless to borrow billions more to pay for more school buildings when district enrollment is declining. According to the state Department of Finance, “California experienced the 6th consecutive decrease in total Public K–12 Enrollment in the 2022–23 school year,” and over the next ten years, if current trends hold, a further decline of 661,500 by 2032–33. Prop. 2 borrows $1.5 billion for California Community College facilities, but enrollment in the state’s community colleges has declined since 2019. The Public Policy Institute of California projects that community college enrollment “will not recover to pre-pandemic levels. ” While the promises made by proponents cannot be guaranteed, Prop. 2 does guarantee higher taxes for over- burdened Californians. VOTE

CA2024-p014-c01 · PDF page 14 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

IMPACT: • Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond. State Bond Cost Estimate Amount borrowed $10 billion Average repayment cost $500 million per year over 35 years Source of repayment General tax revenue FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON AB 247 (PROPOSITION 2) (CHAPTER 81, STATUTES OF 2024) Senate: Ayes 34 Noes 3 Assembly: Ayes 72 Noes 1 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND California Has Many Public Schools and Community Colleges. Currently, there are about 10,000 public schools statewide (including about 1,300 charter schools). These schools serve elementary through high school students. Local school districts govern most of these public schools. California also has 115 local community colleges that ofer associate degrees and other programs for adults. Local community college districts govern these colleges. School and community college districts usually build new facilities when they are growing in enrollment and need additional space. They renovate existing facilities when those facilities are old or unsafe. 14 | Title and Summary / Analysis

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposed $1.5 billion bond for community college facilities would go to public education from Proposition 2.", "source_id": "CA2024-p018-c04", "quote": "Prop. 2 borrows $1.5 billion for California Community College facilities,"}], "missing": ""}

O007 · V2-01 · Everyday

What would Prop 2 actually pay for, and how much are we borrowing?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 2 funds school and college facility repairs without raising taxes. It covers costs for lead water reduction, new classrooms, gyms, and kitchens. The state pays 60-65% of project costs, while districts provide a local match. This creates a $500 million annual repayment over 35 years from the state General Fund.

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$10 billion; public school and community college facilities. Preserve proposal framing.

PDF page 14

2 PROPOSITION AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY 2 COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 70 and the Secretary of State’s website at voterguide.sos.ca.gov. • Authorizes $10 billion in state general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools) and community colleges. • Provides funding for new facilities, to improve school health and safety conditions at existing facilities, and for classroom upgrades (e.g., science, engineering, transitional kindergarten, and vocational classrooms). • Expands eligibility for fnancial hardship grants for small and disadvantaged school districts. • Provides higher percentage of state matching funds to schools demonstrating greatest need. • Requires public hearings and performance audits. • Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT: • Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond. State Bond Cost Estimate Amount borrowed $10 billion Average repayment cost $500 million per year over 35 years Source of repayment General tax revenue FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON AB 247 (PROPOSITION 2) (CHAPTER 81, STATUTES OF 2024) Senate: Ayes 34 Noes 3 Assembly: Ayes 72 Noes 1 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND California Has Many Public Schools and Community Colleges. Currently, there are about 10,000 public schools statewide (including about 1,300 charter schools). These schools serve elementary through high school students. Local school districts govern most of these public schools. California also has 115 local community colleges that ofer associate degrees and other programs for adults. Local community college districts govern these colleges. School and community college districts usually build new facilities when they are growing in enrollment and need additional space. They renovate existing facilities when those facilities are old or unsafe. 14 | Title and Summary / Analysis

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

in the country. Rather than throwing nearly $20 billion into school construction projects, our state needs a well thought out, long-term solution to achieve a high standard of excellence in reading, writing, and math. Prop. 2 does nothing to improve classroom instruction or help our children succeed. Voters rejected Proposition 13, a $15 billion school bond, in 2020 for exactly these reasons. VOTE NO ON PROP. 2. Assemblyman Bill Essayli ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 2 ★ Prop. 2 ensures that California students have the opportunity to learn in safe, updated schools while protecting taxpayers. PROP. 2 IS NOT A TAX INCREASE Prop. 2 will fund local upgrades and repairs to schools and community colleges without raising state or local taxes, despite what critics say. Some of the voices against Prop. 2 are ignorant about state bond fnancing and are making untrue claims because they simply want the state to cut funding for public education. WE CAN’T WAIT ANY LONGER Too many California students attend schools with leaky roofs, unsafe drinking water, mold, asbestos, lead paint, and lead pipes.

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p017-c00 · PDF page 17 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

Proposition 2 funds school and college facility repairs without raising taxes. It covers costs for lead water reduction, new classrooms, gyms, and kitchens. The state pays 60-65% of project costs, while districts provide a local match. This creates a $500 million annual repayment over 35 years from the state General Fund.

O008 · V2-13 · Difficult

Wait, didn't Prop 36 already pass? What was the vote?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

The pre-election guide does not supply this requested information.

Reference notes and official pages

The pre-election guide cannot establish eventual results. No outside knowledge.

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c04 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

war on drugs, wasting billions on jails and prisons, and slashing crucial funding for crime prevention, treatment, victims, and rehabilitation. That will mean more crime, not less. Prop. 36 makes simple drug possession a felony, costing taxpayers billions in incarceration without reducing crime. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Ofce concluded the measure will require the state to spend billions more on prisons over the next several years. That means bigger cuts to schools, healthcare, and other essential services. The measure is also so poorly drafted that it will simply create confusion in the courts and not lead to higher penalties in many retail theft cases. In the last two years, state leaders increased funding for retail theft prosecutions and fentanyl trafcking, leading to more convictions. Lawmakers continue to pass strong new laws targeting retail theft rings, illegal online markets, and fentanyl. California law already requires felonies for smash-and- grab robberies, drug trafcking, and repeat theft, and these serious crimes can lead to tough penalties. There is no loophole—under current law, fentanyl trafckers and repeat thieves can and do spend years behind

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

prevent crime and stop people from cycling in and out of jails will LOSE funding if Prop. 36 passes. These include efective recidivism reduction programs that get people struggling with mental health and addiction of the streets and into treatment, as well as trauma recovery centers for crime victims and programs providing truancy and dropout prevention for at-risk youth. These programs have a proven track record of stopping crime. We need MORE of these programs, working hand-in-hand with law enforcement, not less. This measure only locks more people up in state prison. PROPOSITION 36 IS BEING PUSHED BY MAGA- REPUBLICANS. Don’t be fooled. Law enforcement leaders, crime victims, and rehabilitation experts oppose Prop. 36 because it slashes money for public safety, victims, and treatment programs that stop repeat ofending. EXPERTS ON CRIME, SPENDING, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGREE: Prop. 36 will NOT make our communities safer. Prop. 36 WILL waste hundreds of millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars on methods that are proven to be inefcient and inefective. Voting for Prop. 36 would be a vote to cut money for treatment and

CA2024-p063-c04 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Fentanyl trafcking • Drug addiction without incentives for treatment PROP. 36: TARGETED RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA’S CRIME CRISIS Prop. 36 increases penalties for smash-and-grab theft and serial thieves who victimize businesses repeatedly. No one will go to prison for “stealing a candy bar,” and judges are given discretion to assess the severity of crimes for sentencing. Prop. 36 won’t result in over-incarceration. PROP. 36: SMART APPROACH TO TREATING DRUG ADDICTION Prop. 36 does not automatically lock up drug users. Instead, it restores drug courts, providing ofenders who’ve been convicted three times with incentives to complete drug treatment. PROP. 36: SAVINGS FOR CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS California small businesses and stores lost nearly $9 billion in 2022 from theft. Targeting the small group of criminals who repeatedly steal will result in huge savings for consumers. Treating addiction is a smart way to address illegal drug use and overdoses that cost California $60 billion annually for opioids alone, according to the CDC. PROP. 36: TOUGHER PENALTIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY We shouldn’t let the politicians tell us California’s crime problem doesn’t exist. Prop. 36 is a

CA2024-p063-c05 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

annually for opioids alone, according to the CDC. PROP. 36: TOUGHER PENALTIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY We shouldn’t let the politicians tell us California’s crime problem doesn’t exist. Prop. 36 is a smart, balanced, and responsible approach of tougher penalties for targeted crimes and real accountability for public safety. READ WHY PROP. 36 IS SUPPORTED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, SMALL BUSINESSES, MAYORS, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND VICTIMS’ GROUPS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT VoteYesProp36.com Robert Rivinius, Executive Director Family Business Association of California Jay King, President California Black Chamber of Commerce Greg Van Dyke, President California Consumer Advocates for Afordability and Safety 36 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 63

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{"status": "not_in_guide", "claims": [], "missing": ""}

O009 · V2-01 · Everyday

What would Prop 2 actually pay for, and how much are we borrowing?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$10 billion; public school and community college facilities. Preserve proposal framing.

PDF page 14

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p017-c00 · PDF page 17 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{
  "status": "answered",
  "claims": [
    "Prop 2 funds school construction and renovation projects, specifically for public school and community college facilities.",
    "The estimated cost to repay the bond is about $500 million each year over a 35-year period."
  ],
  "missing": ""
}

O010 · V2-04 · Everyday

How do we know this school bond money won't be wasted?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 2 ensures school bond money isn't wasted through strict transparency and accountability. It requires independent audits of every project to verify funds are used correctly. Additionally, it mandates public disclosure of all spending and protects taxpayers from higher local property taxes by using state matching funds. This system guarantees that taxpayer dollars are tracked, audited, and spent on safe, modern school facilities.

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

Explain the documented accountability measures, including public hearings and performance audits (pages 14 and 16). They provide oversight; they do not guarantee that no money will be wasted. Do not answer the implied guarantee with an unsupported promise.

PDF page 14

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p075-c00 · PDF page 75 · text of proposed laws

PROPOSITION 2 CONTINUED this section may be legally defeased to the extent permitted by law in the manner and to the extent set forth in the resolution, as amended from time to time, authorizing that refunded bond. 101452. The proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this chapter are not “proceeds of taxes” as that term is used in Article XIII B of the California Constitution, and the disbursement of these proceeds is not subject to the limitations imposed by that article. CHAPTER 4. T RANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS 101460. (a) (1) The governing board of a school district, the governing board of a community college district, a county superintendent of schools, or the governing body of a charter school shall ensure that an independent performance audit of any project funded in whole or in part from the proceeds of bonds authorized by this part is conducted to ensure that the use of the applicable funds has been reviewed for expenditure consistent with the requirements of all applicable laws. (2) A performance audit conducted for any project funded in

CA2024-p070-c02 · PDF page 70 · text of proposed laws

a four- year degree. Career technical education, also known as vocational training, connects students to these career opportunities by providing industry-based skills. (d) The School Facility Program is almost out of funding. School districts across California have submitted a total of $3,300,000,000 in new construction and modernization projects and they are waiting to be funded. (e) There are over 1,000 charter schools in California, and those charter schools are primarily located in urban areas. Charter schools often face significant financial challenges in securing adequate facilities. Therefore, supporting charter school facilities is essential to ensuring that all students have access to high-quality learning environments. By investing in the construction 70 | Text of Proposed Laws and rehabilitation of charter school buildings, we can help ensure these schools can provide safe, modern, and conducive learning environments. This support is important for fostering educational innovation and providing equitable educational opportunities for all students. (f) Small and disadvantaged school districts often face significant challenges in maintaining and upgrading their facilities. These districts serve some of the most vulnerable student populations and frequently lack the

CA2024-p072-c06 · PDF page 72 · text of proposed laws

yet repaid pursuant to Section 101426 and withdrawn from the General Fund pursuant to this section and not yet returned, that have been authorized by the State School Building Finance Committee to be sold for the purpose of carrying out this chapter. Any amounts withdrawn shall be deposited in the 2024 State School Facilities Fund and allocated by the State Allocation Board in accordance with this chapter. Any money made available under this section shall be returned to the General Fund, plus an amount equal to the interest that the money would have earned in the Pooled Money Investment Account, from proceeds received from the sale of bonds for purposes of carrying out this chapter.

CA2024-p015-c00 · PDF page 15 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. 2 2 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST State and Districts Usually Split Education Facility Costs. For public school districts, the state usually pays 50 percent of the cost of new construction projects and 60 percent of the cost of renovation projects. School districts are expected to pay remaining project costs using local funds. The state also often shares the cost of new construction and renovation projects with community college districts. Though the share of costs varies among projects, the state commonly pays about half of the cost, with community college districts paying the rest using local funds. State Mainly Uses Bonds to Pay Its Share of Costs. Bonds are a way that the state borrows money and then repays the money plus interest over time. For more information about bonds, see “Overview of State Bond Debt” later in this guide. Over the past 20 years, the bulk of state facility funding for schools and community colleges has come from voter-approved bonds (a total of $31.8 billion). Recently, the state

Raw model output

Proposition 2 ensures school bond money isn't wasted through strict transparency and accountability. It requires independent audits of every project to verify funds are used correctly. Additionally, it mandates public disclosure of all spending and protects taxpayers from higher local property taxes by using state matching funds. This system guarantees that taxpayer dollars are tracked, audited, and spent on safe, modern school facilities.

O011 · V2-10 · Everyday

How much more would we spend on prisons and courts if this passes?

Voter-visible answer

The Legislative Analyst says the measure would require the state to spend billions more on prisons over the next several years. [CA2024-p062-c04]

PDF page 58 ↗ · PDF page 61 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

State: several tens to low hundreds of millions annually; local: tens of millions annually. Estimates, not exact costs.

PDF page 58

PDF page 61

PROPOSITIONALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST community supervision. Overall, Proposition 36 likely would increase the county population. This increase could be around a few thousand people. (There are about 250,000 people at the county level now.) • Increase in Local Court-Related Workload. It would also increase workload for local prosecutors and public defenders. This is because felonies usually take more time to resolve than misdemeanors. Also, treatment-mandated felonies would create workload for some county agencies (such as probation or behavioral health departments). In total, Proposition 36 would increase local criminal justice costs, likely by tens of millions of dollars annually. Reduces Amount State Must Spend on Certain Services. Proposition 47 created a process in which the estimated state savings from its punishment reductions must be spent on mental health and drug treatment, school truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services. These estimated savings totaled CONTINUED $95 million last year. By undoing parts of Proposition 47, Proposition 36 reduces the state savings from Proposition 47. This would reduce the amount the state must spend on mental health and drug treatment, school truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services. This reduction likely would be in the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Other Fiscal Impacts. Proposition 36 could have other fscal efects on the state and local governments. For example, if the increased punishments or mandated treatment reduce crime, some state and local criminal justice costs could be avoided. However, it is unknown if these or other efects would occur. Visit sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access- resources/measure-contributions/2024- ballot-measure-contribution-totals for a list of committees primarily formed to support or oppose this measure. Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/ top-contributors.html to access the committee’s top 10 contributors. 36 For the full text of Proposition 36, see page 126. Analysis | 61

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p062-c04 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c01 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

charges. It is a gross overreach that brings back 1980s “drug war” style tactics that packed our state prisons with people convicted of low- level drug ofenses, harming public safety and damaging families and communities. We must address persistent problems like theft and fentanyl, but we must use solutions that work and are targeted at the actual issue, instead of the scattershot failed solutions of the past. By making simple drug possession a felony, this measure will send thousands into state prison, drive up prison costs, and slash money for local safety programs. That will make crime worse, not better. PROP. 36 STRIPS MONEY FROM CRIME VICTIMS, REHABILITATION, AND MENTAL HEALTH. Prop. 36 will strip millions away from dedicated funding that is spent on rehabilitation and services for crime victims, and it will expand the state prisons budget instead. Local public safety programs that are working with law enforcement to prevent crime and stop people from cycling in and out of jails will LOSE funding if Prop. 36 passes. These include efective recidivism reduction programs that get people struggling with

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p060-c02 · PDF page 60 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

of millions of dollars each year (annually). This amount is less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.) Increases Local Criminal Justice Costs. Proposition 36 would increase local criminal justice costs in two main ways. • Net Increase in County Jail and Community Supervision Population. In some ways, Proposition 36 would reduce the jail and community supervision population. This is because some people would go to state prison instead of the county level. In other ways, it would increase this population. This is because some people would spend more time in county jail or on 60 | Analysis

CA2024-p063-c00 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The Legislative Analyst says the measure would require the state to spend billions more on prisons over the next several years.", "source_id": "CA2024-p062-c04", "quote": "the state to spend billions more on prisons over the next several years."}], "missing": ""}

O012 · V2-05 · Everyday

I work for a business with about 15 employees. When would the minimum wage go up to $17 and $18?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 38 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$17 from January 1, 2025; $18 from January 1, 2026.

PDF page 38

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p038-c02 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p039-c01 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

or down. This change likely would be smaller than one-quarter of 1 percent. Government Costs Could Go Up or Down. Proposition 32 would increase state and local government costs in some ways but would decrease them in other ways: • Higher Government Costs to Pay for Workers. The state and many local governments would have higher costs to pay their employees. They also would have higher costs to pay for work done by workers who are not their employees. • Savings From Lower Enrollment in Health and Human Services Programs. Proposition 32 would change the number of people enrolled in health and human CONTINUED services programs (such as California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal) because it would change people’s incomes. These enrollment changes likely would reduce state and local government costs. Combining these two pieces, total state and local government costs could go up or down. This change likely would not exceed the high hundreds of millions of dollars each year (annually). (Total state and local government spending in California exceeds $500 billion annually.) The change in costs to the state’s General

CA2024-p039-c00 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p038-c00 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{
  "status": "answered",
  "claims": [
    "Proposition 32 sets a minimum wage of $17 per hour for employers with 25 or fewer employees starting January 1, 2025.",
    "Proposition 32 sets a minimum wage of $18 per hour for employers with 26 or more employees starting January 1, 2025."
  ],
  "missing": "The specific date when the $17 wage applies to employers with 25 or fewer employees is not fully specified in the provided text."
}

O013 · V2-09 · Everyday

I thought shoplifting under $950 wasn't a felony. Would this change that?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 58 ↗ · PDF page 59 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 58

PDF page 59

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p059-c00 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p059-c01 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p128-c01 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p058-c00 · PDF page 58 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p128-c02 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{
  "status": "answered",
  "claims": [
    "Proposition 36 makes theft of items worth $950 or less a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes.",
    "Proposition 36 increases punishment for some theft and drug crimes in three ways: Turns Some Misdemeanors Into Felonies."
  ],
  "missing": "The specific number of past convictions required to elevate shoplifting to a felony under Proposition 36 is not explicitly stated in the provided text."
}

O014 · V2-01 · Everyday

What would Prop 2 actually pay for, and how much are we borrowing?

Voter-visible answer

The estimated repayment cost would be about $500 million each year over 35 years. [CA2024-p016-c02]

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$10 billion; public school and community college facilities. Preserve proposal framing.

PDF page 14

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p017-c00 · PDF page 17 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The estimated repayment cost would be about $500 million each year over 35 years.", "source_id": "CA2024-p016-c02", "quote": "The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $500 million each year (annually) over a 35-year period."}], "missing": ""}

O015 · V2-13 · Difficult

Wait, didn't Prop 36 already pass? What was the vote?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

The pre-election guide does not supply this requested information.

Reference notes and official pages

The pre-election guide cannot establish eventual results. No outside knowledge.

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c04 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c04 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c05 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided ballot guide passages do not contain information regarding the historical vote count or whether Proposition 36 had already passed prior to the 2024 election."
}

O016 · V2-14 · Difficult

Will this actually cut down on shoplifting, or is that just what supporters are saying?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 36 does not reduce shoplifting; it increases penalties for repeat offenders. The law allows prosecutors to charge felony theft for two prior theft convictions, regardless of the value stolen. While diversion programs remain for first-time offenders, the measure aims to lock up repeat criminals in state prison. Supporters claim it stops crime, but critics argue it wastes taxpayer money by cutting funding for mental health and treatment programs. The measure is seen as an extreme, one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address root causes like fentanyl use.

PDF page 60 ↗ · PDF page 61 ↗ · PDF page 62 ↗ · PDF page 63 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

Separate independent analysis from attributed supporter and opponent predictions. Do not guarantee fewer shoplifting incidents or safer neighborhoods. Cite the relevant source role and preserve uncertainty.

PDF page 60

PROPOSITION ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR 36 CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 36 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST get treatment, such as mental health or drug treatment. Those who fnish treatment would have their charges dismissed. Those who do not fnish treatment could serve up to three years in state prison. This change undoes some of the punishment reductions in Proposition 47. REQUIRES WARNING OF POSSIBLE MURDER CHARGES FOR SELLING OR PROVIDING DRUGS Proposition 36 requires courts to warn people that they could be charged with murder if they sell or provide illegal drugs that kill someone. This warning would be given to people convicted of selling or providing certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine). This could make it more likely for them to be convicted of murder if they later sell or provide illegal drugs to someone who dies. FISCAL EFFECTS Proposition 36 would have various fscal efects on the state and local governments. The size of these efects would depend on uncertain factors, such as what decisions local prosecutors would make. Increases State Criminal Justice Costs. Proposition 36 would increase state criminal justice costs in two main ways. • Increase in State Prison Population. It would require some people who now serve their sentences at the county level to serve them in state CONTINUED prison. Also, it lengthens some prison sentences. In total, the prison population could increase by around a few thousand people. (There are about 90,000 people in prison now.) • Increase in State Court Workload. This is because felonies usually take more time to resolve than misdemeanors. Also, treatment- mandated felonies would increase court workload. In total, Proposition 36 would increase state criminal justice costs, likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars each year (annually). This amount is less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.) Increases Local Criminal Justice Costs. Proposition 36 would increase local criminal justice costs in two main ways. • Net Increase in County Jail and Community Supervision Population. In some ways, Proposition 36 would reduce the jail and community supervision population. This is because some people would go to state prison instead of the county level. In other ways, it would increase this population. This is because some people would spend more time in county jail or on 60 | Analysis

PDF page 61

PDF page 62

PROPOSITION ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR 36 CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. ★ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 36 ★ YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER LAWS TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES SAFER AND HOLD REPEAT CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE California is sufering from an explosion in crime and the trafcking of deadly hard drugs like fentanyl. Prop. 36 will fx the mess our politicians have ignored for far too long. It is a balanced approach that corrects loopholes in state law that criminals exploit to avoid accountability for fentanyl trafcking and repeat retail theft. YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER LAWS TO STOP “SMASH- AND-GRAB” THEFTS The explosion in retail theft has caused stores across California to raise prices, lock up items, and close their doors. Prop. 36 increases penalties for smash-and-grab crimes when three or more people act together to commit theft. It also allows prosecutors to fle felony charges if a defendant has two or more prior theft convictions. “California needs Prop. 36’s tougher laws against smash- and-grab thefts so we can keep small businesses open in every community. ”—Robert Rivinius, Executive Director, Family Business Association of California YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER PROSECUTION OF SERIAL THIEVES Under current California law, thieves can get away with the equivalent of a TRAFFIC TICKET if the value of items stolen in one instance is $950 or less. That means someone can steal an UNLIMITED amount—so long as each individual crime is not over $950—and likely avoid jail time and even arrest. “Prop. 36 will allow prosecutors to combine the value of items stolen from multiple thefts and increase accountability for serial thieves. ”—Mike Hestrin, Riverside County District Attorney YES ON PROP. 36: TOUGHER PENALTIES FOR FENTANYL TRAFFICKING Fentanyl is one of the top killers in California, with more young people dying of drug overdoses than car accidents. Yet fentanyl is treated less seriously than methamphetamine, heroin, PCP, and cocaine when ofenders are armed with a frearm. Prop. 36 will close this loophole while increasing penalties for trafcking large quantities and when a trafcker sells drugs to someone who dies as a result. “Fentanyl has killed too many people, yet trafckers can avoid the consequences. We need Prop. 36 because no parent should ever have to bury another child killed by fentanyl poisoning. ”—Gina McDonald, Co-Founder, Mothers Against Drug Addiction and Deaths YES ON PROP. 36: HOLD CAREER CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE AND ENFORCE DRUG TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS In California, criminal justice reforms have advanced equity and reduced incarceration rates. But the unintended consequences of these policies include an epidemic of drug use, trafcking, and repeat retail theft because the people committing these crimes don’t face any serious consequences. “Prop. 36 will make our justice system fair and create efective tools for holding individuals accountable for their crimes and helping those who sufer from addiction to hard drugs get the necessary treatment to begin new lives. ”—Rev. Jonathan Moseley, Western Regional Director, National Action Network Los Angeles VOTE YES ON PROP. 36 FOR SAFER CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES Prop. 36 will toughen California’s laws on “smash-and-grab” theft and fentanyl trafcking. That’s why small businesses, law enforcement, social justice, crime victims’, and drug survivors’ advocates, along with 900,000 Californians support Prop. 36. Read it for yourself at VoteYesProp36.com. Gregory Totten, Chief Executive Ofcer California District Attorneys Association Harriet Salarno, Founder Crime Victims United Michael Hedges, President California Small Business Association 36 ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 36 ★ Retail theft and fentanyl are real problems. Californians deserve real solutions. Prop. 36 is a false promise, not a fx. Prop. 36 will reignite the failed war on drugs, wasting billions on jails and prisons, and slashing crucial funding for crime prevention, treatment, victims, and rehabilitation. That will mean more crime, not less. Prop. 36 makes simple drug possession a felony, costing taxpayers billions in incarceration without reducing crime. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Ofce concluded the measure will require the state to spend billions more on prisons over the next several years. That means bigger cuts to schools, healthcare, and other essential services. The measure is also so poorly drafted that it will simply create confusion in the courts and not lead to higher penalties in many retail theft cases. In the last two years, state leaders increased funding for retail theft prosecutions and fentanyl trafcking, leading to more convictions. Lawmakers continue to pass strong new laws targeting retail theft rings, illegal online markets, and fentanyl. California law already requires felonies for smash-and- grab robberies, drug trafcking, and repeat theft, and these serious crimes can lead to tough penalties. There is no loophole—under current law, fentanyl trafckers and repeat thieves can and do spend years behind bars. Prop. 36 doesn’t fx anything—it’s about funding prisons instead of treatment and prevention. This sends California backward, not forward. Don’t be fooled by false solutions. Vote No on Prop. 36. Cristine Soto DeBerry, Executive Director Prosecutors Alliance Action Don Frazier, Executive Director Reentry Providers Association of California David Guizar, Co-Founder Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice 62 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency.

PDF page 63

PROPOSITIONALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 36 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 36 ★ VOTE NO ON PROP. 36! THIS IS A WASTEFUL APPROACH THAT MAKES CALIFORNIA LESS SAFE. PROP. 36 is an extreme measure that will waste $750 million in taxpayer dollars; cut funding from mental health, drug treatment, and rehabilitation programs; and do nothing to make us safer. PROPOSITION 36 IS THE WRONG ANSWER. We must have an all-of-the-above approach to stop fentanyl use and improve public safety, but PROP. 36 is the opposite of that. This is a one-size-fts-all prison-frst approach. It will lock up people who are not a danger, slash desperately needed money from proven crime prevention and treatment programs, and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions more on prisons. PROP. 36 IS TOO EXTREME. Prop. 36 is so extreme that stealing a candy bar could lead to felony charges. It is a gross overreach that brings back 1980s “drug war” style tactics that packed our state prisons with people convicted of low- level drug ofenses, harming public safety and damaging families and communities. We must address persistent problems like theft and fentanyl, but we must use solutions that work and are targeted at the actual issue, instead of the scattershot failed solutions of the past. By making simple drug possession a felony, this measure will send thousands into state prison, drive up prison costs, and slash money for local safety programs. That will make crime worse, not better. PROP. 36 STRIPS MONEY FROM CRIME VICTIMS, REHABILITATION, AND MENTAL HEALTH. Prop. 36 will strip millions away from dedicated funding that is spent on rehabilitation and services for crime victims, and it will expand the state prisons budget instead. Local public safety programs that are working with law enforcement to prevent crime and stop people from cycling in and out of jails will LOSE funding if Prop. 36 passes. These include efective recidivism reduction programs that get people struggling with mental health and addiction of the streets and into treatment, as well as trauma recovery centers for crime victims and programs providing truancy and dropout prevention for at-risk youth. These programs have a proven track record of stopping crime. We need MORE of these programs, working hand-in-hand with law enforcement, not less. This measure only locks more people up in state prison. PROPOSITION 36 IS BEING PUSHED BY MAGA- REPUBLICANS. Don’t be fooled. Law enforcement leaders, crime victims, and rehabilitation experts oppose Prop. 36 because it slashes money for public safety, victims, and treatment programs that stop repeat ofending. EXPERTS ON CRIME, SPENDING, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGREE: Prop. 36 will NOT make our communities safer. Prop. 36 WILL waste hundreds of millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars on methods that are proven to be inefcient and inefective. Voting for Prop. 36 would be a vote to cut money for treatment and victims and waste taxpayer dollars. Voting NO on Prop. 36 maintains serious penalties for drug trafcking and organized crime, and protects dedicated funding for treatment, crime prevention, and rehabilitation that successfully reduce crime and recidivism. VOTE NO ON PROP. 36 More info: StopProp36.com Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County William Lansdowne, Police Chief (ret.) City of San Diego Jess Nichol, Victim Advocate Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice ★ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 36 ★ YES ON PROP. 36: BALANCED, RESPONSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO RISING CRIME California has a serious crime problem, and the politicians have failed to fx it. Prop. 36 is a tailored reform focused on the root causes of rising crime: • Repeat retail theft • Fentanyl trafcking • Drug addiction without incentives for treatment PROP. 36: TARGETED RESPONSE TO CALIFORNIA’S CRIME CRISIS Prop. 36 increases penalties for smash-and-grab theft and serial thieves who victimize businesses repeatedly. No one will go to prison for “stealing a candy bar,” and judges are given discretion to assess the severity of crimes for sentencing. Prop. 36 won’t result in over-incarceration. PROP. 36: SMART APPROACH TO TREATING DRUG ADDICTION Prop. 36 does not automatically lock up drug users. Instead, it restores drug courts, providing ofenders who’ve been convicted three times with incentives to complete drug treatment. PROP. 36: SAVINGS FOR CONSUMERS AND TAXPAYERS California small businesses and stores lost nearly $9 billion in 2022 from theft. Targeting the small group of criminals who repeatedly steal will result in huge savings for consumers. Treating addiction is a smart way to address illegal drug use and overdoses that cost California $60 billion annually for opioids alone, according to the CDC. PROP. 36: TOUGHER PENALTIES AND ACCOUNTABILITY We shouldn’t let the politicians tell us California’s crime problem doesn’t exist. Prop. 36 is a smart, balanced, and responsible approach of tougher penalties for targeted crimes and real accountability for public safety. READ WHY PROP. 36 IS SUPPORTED BY DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, SMALL BUSINESSES, MAYORS, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND VICTIMS’ GROUPS, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT VoteYesProp36.com Robert Rivinius, Executive Director Family Business Association of California Jay King, President California Black Chamber of Commerce Greg Van Dyke, President California Consumer Advocates for Afordability and Safety 36 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any offcial agency. Arguments | 63

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p131-c03 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

Robbery, as described in Section 211. (H) Receiving stolen property, as described in Section 496. (I) Shoplifting, as described in Section 459.5. (J) Identity theft and mail theft, as described in Section 530.5. (b) A person subject to charging under this section or actually charged with this section may be referred by a prosecuting attorney’s office or by a county probation department to a theft diversion or deferred entry of judgment program pursuant to Section 1001.81. lf appropriate, a person admitted to such a program may also be referred to a substance abuse treatment program. (c) Upon an arrest for a violation of this section, the court shall require judicial review prior to release to make an individualized determination of risk to public safety and likelihood to return to court. (d) This section shall not be construed to preclude prosecution or punishment pursuant to any other law. SEC. 10. Section 12022 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 12022. (a) (1) Except as provided in subdivisions (c) and (d), a person who is armed with a firearm in the

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c00 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p131-c02 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

petty theft or shoplifting, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. A second or subsequent conviction of this section is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or by imprisonment in the state prison. (2) This section applies to the following offenses, including a conviction that occurred before the effective date of this section: (A) Petty theft, as described in Section 488 or 490.2. (B) Grand theft, as described in Sections 487, 487h, and in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 484) of Title 13 of Part 1. (C) Theft from an elder or dependent adult, as described in Section 368. (D) The theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle, as described in Section 10851 of the Vehicle Code. (E) Burglary, as described in Section 459. (F) Carjacking, as described in Section 215. (G) Robbery, as described in Section 211. (H) Receiving stolen property, as described in Section 496. (I) Shoplifting, as described in Section 459.5. (J) Identity theft and mail theft, as described

CA2024-p131-c01 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

determination of risk to public safety and likelihood to return to court. (g) This section shall not be construed to preclude prosecution or punishment pursuant to any other law. SEC. 8. Section 490.3 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 490.3. Notwithstanding any other law, in any case involving one or more acts of theft or shoplifting, including, but not limited to, violations of Sections 459.5, 484, 488, and 490.2, the value of property or merchandise stolen may be aggregated into a single count or charge, with the sum of the value of all property or merchandise being the values considered in determining the degree of theft. SEC. 9. Section 666.1 is added to the Penal Code, to read: 666.1. (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a person who has two or more prior convictions for any of the offenses listed in paragraph (2), and who is convicted of petty theft or shoplifting, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170. A second or subsequent conviction of

CA2024-p128-c00 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

PROPOSITION 36 CONTINUED 36 This rapid increase in retail and cargo theft has also contributed to rising inflation, as businesses have been forced to raise prices to account for their economic losses. This retail and cargo theft explosion has collided with the fentanyl epidemic, as hard drug users have engaged in brazen theft to support their drug habits, knowing that there will be no consequences for either their theft or their hard drug use. (3) Under this act, an offender with two prior convictions for theft can be charged with a felony, regardless of the value of the stolen property. Diversion programs will continue to exist, meaning that judges will retain discretion not to incarcerate an offender even for more than two theft convictions. But prosecutors will have the ability to bring felony charges against hardened, repeat offenders who continue to engage in theft. Judges will have the discretion to sentence a repeat offender to jail in appropriate cases, or to state prison if an offender is convicted four or more times of theft. (4) This act also authorizes judges

Raw model output

Proposition 36 does not reduce shoplifting; it increases penalties for repeat offenders. The law allows prosecutors to charge felony theft for two prior theft convictions, regardless of the value stolen. While diversion programs remain for first-time offenders, the measure aims to lock up repeat criminals in state prison. Supporters claim it stops crime, but critics argue it wastes taxpayer money by cutting funding for mental health and treatment programs. The measure is seen as an extreme, one-size-fits-all approach that fails to address root causes like fentanyl use.

O017 · V2-09 · Everyday

I thought shoplifting under $950 wasn't a felony. Would this change that?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 58 ↗ · PDF page 59 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 58

PDF page 59

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p059-c00 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p059-c01 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p128-c01 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p058-c00 · PDF page 58 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p128-c02 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "Proposition 36 would make shoplifting under $950 a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes.", "source_id": "CA2024-p059-c01", "quote": "theft of items worth $950 or less is generally a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 makes this crime a felony if the person has two or more past convictions for certain theft crimes"}], "missing": ""}

O018 · V2-14 · Difficult

Will this actually cut down on shoplifting, or is that just what supporters are saying?

Voter-visible answer

The proposed shoplifting provision would be included in the proposed Penal Code amendments. [CA2024-p131-c02]

PDF page 60 ↗ · PDF page 61 ↗ · PDF page 62 ↗ · PDF page 63 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 60

PDF page 61

PDF page 62

PDF page 63

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p131-c03 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c00 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p131-c02 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p131-c01 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p128-c00 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposed shoplifting provision would be included in the proposed Penal Code amendments.", "source_id": "CA2024-p131-c02", "quote": "petty theft or shoplifting, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170."}], "missing": ""}

O019 · V2-03 · Everyday

How much would we be paying back each year, and for how long?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 17 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

About $500 million annually for 35 years. These are estimates.

PDF page 14

PDF page 17

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p064-c02 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p064-c03 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c01 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c00 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. 2 ★ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 2 ★ 2 NO ON PROPOSITION 2: Tell politicians to prioritize education funding over free healthcare for illegal immigrants in our state budget, rather than further burdening taxpayers to pay of Sacramento’s ballooning bond debt. Proposition 2 is yet another attempt to circumvent California’s fnancial problems by asking taxpayers to approve a $10 billion bond for education fnancing that should have been included in this year’s $288 billion budget package. A budget is a refection of priorities, and our S tate Legislature chose to prioritize over $5 billion for universal illegal immigrant healthcare rather than providing funds to support and repair our school infrastructure. Billions in new bond debt is not the answer. Prop. 2 Saddles Future Generations with Debt that Our Kids Will Be Paying Of for Decades The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association points out that bonds are borrowed money that must be paid back, plus interest, even if that means cutting vital programs to do it. Governor Newsom recently declared a budget

Raw model output

{
  "status": "answered",
  "claims": [
    "Proposition 2 would cost about $500 million each year for 35 years to repay the bond.",
    "Proposition 4 would cost about $400 million each year for 40 years to repay the bond."
  ],
  "missing": "The combined cost of both bonds would total about $900 million each year."
}

O020 · V2-08 · Everyday

Will the minimum wage increase make everyday things more expensive?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 39 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 39

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p041-c03 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p041-c00 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c02 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p041-c01 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p097-c03 · PDF page 97 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{
  "status": "answered",
  "claims": [
    "Proposition 32 will increase costs on family-owned businesses who can least afford it, forcing small employers to raise prices for consumers.",
    "Proposition 32 will increase costs on family-owned businesses who can least afford it, forcing small employers to raise prices for consumers."
  ],
  "missing": ""
}

O021 · V2-07 · Everyday

If the minimum wage goes up, could people lose their jobs?

Voter-visible answer

Yes, Proposition 32 could cause job losses. Advocacy groups warn that raising the minimum wage too quickly harms small businesses, which are more vulnerable than large corporations. When workers lose jobs or companies fail, the wage becomes zero dollars per hour. This disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including young African-American, Latino, and non-college-educated workers. While some sources suggest costs might rise or fall, the primary concern is the potential for thousands of jobs to disappear due to the economic impact on small businesses.

PDF page 39 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

The Legislative Analyst says the number of jobs could go up or down, with a change likely smaller than one-quarter of 1 percent. Do not guarantee job losses or gains or predict a particular worker losing their job. Preserve uncertainty and historical proposal framing.

PDF page 39

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p041-c02 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p039-c01 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p038-c01 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

IMPACT: • State and local government costs could increase or decrease. This change likely would not exceed the high hundreds of millions of dollars annually. • State and local tax revenues likely would decrease. This revenue loss likely would not exceed a few hundred million dollars annually. 32 ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BACKGROUND State and Local Laws Set Minimum Wages. Employers must pay their workers at least the minimum wage. California’s minimum wage currently is $16 per hour. Some local governments have higher minimum wages. Minimum wage laws do not apply to independent contractors and other self-employed people. Infation Adjustments Under Current Law. Prices tend to go up over time. These rising prices are called “infation. ” The state adjusts its minimum wage every year based on infation. Each adjustment matches U.S. infation, except in two cases: • If infation is negative, the adjustment is zero. • If infation exceeds 3.5 percent, the adjustment is 3.5 percent. State Sets Higher Minimum Wages for Some Employers. State laws set higher minimum wages for employers in some industries. For example, most

CA2024-p039-c00 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p097-c05 · PDF page 97 · text of proposed laws

their basic needs. More than a third of Californians are living in or near poverty. The large majority of California’s low-wage workers are adults, not teens. The average age for low-wage workers is 36, compared to 40 for all workers. Forty-six percent of low-wage workers have children, and 40 percent are married. Californians cannot support a family on the current minimum wage of $15 per hour, or $31,200 per year, for people working full time. 32 (g) Despite being employed full time, Californians who are paid the current minimum wage often must rely on the state’s social safety net to meet their basic needs. Californians’ wages are not keeping up with inflation or our state’s rising cost of living. Research finds that a single parent living in California with two children would need to make $50 per hour to get by, but our state’s minimum wage is only $15 per hour. (h) The purchasing power of the minimum wage will continue to erode if it is not adjusted yearly to reflect increases in the cost of living. (i) Raising the

Raw model output

Yes, Proposition 32 could cause job losses. Advocacy groups warn that raising the minimum wage too quickly harms small businesses, which are more vulnerable than large corporations. When workers lose jobs or companies fail, the wage becomes zero dollars per hour. This disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, including young African-American, Latino, and non-college-educated workers. While some sources suggest costs might rise or fall, the primary concern is the potential for thousands of jobs to disappear due to the economic impact on small businesses.

O022 · V2-05 · Everyday

I work for a business with about 15 employees. When would the minimum wage go up to $17 and $18?

Voter-visible answer

Employers with 25 or fewer employees would have a $17 minimum wage beginning January 1, 2025. [CA2024-p038-c00] Employers with 26 or more employees would have a $18 minimum wage beginning January 1, 2025. [CA2024-p038-c00]

PDF page 38 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$17 from January 1, 2025; $18 from January 1, 2026.

PDF page 38

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p038-c02 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p039-c01 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p039-c00 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p038-c00 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "Employers with 25 or fewer employees would have a $17 minimum wage beginning January 1, 2025.", "source_id": "CA2024-p038-c00", "quote": "Employers with 25 or fewer employees would pay $17 hourly beginning January 1, 2025,"}, {"text": "Employers with 26 or more employees would have a $18 minimum wage beginning January 1, 2025.", "source_id": "CA2024-p038-c00", "quote": "Employers with 26 or more employees would pay $17 hourly for the remainder of 2024 and $18 hourly beginning on January 1, 2025."}], "missing": ""}

O023 · V2-05 · Everyday

I work for a business with about 15 employees. When would the minimum wage go up to $17 and $18?

Voter-visible answer

Under Proposition 32, your business with 15 employees must pay $17 per hour starting January 1, 2025. The minimum wage will reach $18 for all employees in 2026. There is no change to your current rate of $16 per hour.

PDF page 38 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$17 from January 1, 2025; $18 from January 1, 2026.

PDF page 38

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p038-c02 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p039-c01 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p039-c00 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p038-c00 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

Under Proposition 32, your business with 15 employees must pay $17 per hour starting January 1, 2025. The minimum wage will reach $18 for all employees in 2026. There is no change to your current rate of $16 per hour.

O024 · V2-04 · Everyday

How do we know this school bond money won't be wasted?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 14

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p075-c00 · PDF page 75 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p070-c02 · PDF page 70 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p072-c06 · PDF page 72 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p015-c00 · PDF page 15 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposed transparency provisions would require independent performance audits of school projects funded from bond proceeds.", "source_id": "CA2024-p072-c06", "quote": "an independent performance audit of any project funded in whole or in part from the proceeds of bonds authorized by this part is conducted"}], "missing": ""}

O025 · V2-11 · Difficult

I'm worried about theft. Should I vote yes on Prop 36?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

The pre-election guide does not supply this requested information.

Reference notes and official pages

No recommendation. Offer to explain effects of yes and no.

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c03 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c00 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c02 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c01 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided guide does not contain information on whether to vote yes or no on Prop 36."
}

O026 · V2-15 · Difficult

How much of the school bond is for community colleges, and will my local college get any?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p018-c01 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p015-c01 · PDF page 15 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c02 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p014-c01 · PDF page 14 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided passages do not contain specific information regarding the dollar amount allocated to community colleges versus public schools, nor do they confirm whether a local community college district will receive any funding."
}

O027 · V2-14 · Difficult

Will this actually cut down on shoplifting, or is that just what supporters are saying?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

PDF page 60 ↗ · PDF page 61 ↗ · PDF page 62 ↗ · PDF page 63 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 60

PDF page 61

PDF page 62

PDF page 63

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p131-c03 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c00 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p131-c02 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p131-c01 · PDF page 131 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p128-c00 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided passages do not contain information regarding the actual effectiveness or outcomes of Proposition 36 on shoplifting."
}

O028 · V2-03 · Everyday

How much would we be paying back each year, and for how long?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 2 would require the state to repay about $500 million each year for 35 years. This debt service would be paid from the state's General Fund.

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 17 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

About $500 million annually for 35 years. These are estimates.

PDF page 14

PDF page 17

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p064-c02 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p064-c03 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c01 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c00 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

Proposition 2 would require the state to repay about $500 million each year for 35 years. This debt service would be paid from the state's General Fund.

O029 · V2-06 · Everyday

I work for a big company with about 100 employees. When would the $17 and $18 wages kick in?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 38 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$17 immediately and $18 from January 1, 2025; correctly distinguish employer size.

PDF page 38

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p038-c02 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p038-c00 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p041-c02 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p098-c02 · PDF page 98 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{
  "status": "answered",
  "claims": [
    "Proposition 32 sets a $17 minimum wage for employers with 25 or fewer employees starting January 1, 2025.",
    "Proposition 32 sets a $18 minimum wage for employers with 26 or more employees starting January 1, 2025."
  ],
  "missing": "The specific date when the $17 and $18 wages apply to your company of 100 employees is not explicitly stated in the provided text."
}

O030 · V2-06 · Everyday

I work for a big company with about 100 employees. When would the $17 and $18 wages kick in?

Voter-visible answer

If you work for a company with 26 or more employees, the $17 wage applies to 2024 and the $18 wage starts in January 2025. If you work for a company with 25 or fewer employees, the $17 wage applies starting January 2025, and the $18 wage begins in January 2026.

PDF page 38 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$17 immediately and $18 from January 1, 2025; correctly distinguish employer size.

PDF page 38

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p038-c02 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p038-c00 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p041-c02 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p098-c02 · PDF page 98 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

If you work for a company with 26 or more employees, the $17 wage applies to 2024 and the $18 wage starts in January 2025. If you work for a company with 25 or fewer employees, the $17 wage applies starting January 2025, and the $18 wage begins in January 2026.

O031 · V2-04 · Everyday

How do we know this school bond money won't be wasted?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 14

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p075-c00 · PDF page 75 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p070-c02 · PDF page 70 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p072-c06 · PDF page 72 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p015-c00 · PDF page 15 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided guide does not contain information on how to verify that school bond money will not be wasted."
}

O032 · V2-11 · Difficult

I'm worried about theft. Should I vote yes on Prop 36?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

The pre-election guide does not supply this requested information.

Reference notes and official pages

No recommendation. Offer to explain effects of yes and no.

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c03 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c00 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c02 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c01 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposed argument for YES says Prop. 36 would toughen laws on smash-and-grab theft and fentanyl trafficking.", "source_id": "CA2024-p062-c03", "quote": "Prop. 36 will toughen California’s laws on \"smash-and-grab\" theft and fentanyl trafcking."}], "missing": ""}

O033 · V2-08 · Everyday

Will the minimum wage increase make everyday things more expensive?

Voter-visible answer

Yes, Proposition 32 would raise the minimum wage to $18/hour. This increase would make everyday items more expensive because businesses must pass higher costs to consumers. Advocates argue this helps low-wage workers afford basic needs, while opponents warn it hurts small businesses and increases taxes for everyone.

PDF page 39 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 39

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p041-c03 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p041-c00 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c02 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p041-c01 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p097-c03 · PDF page 97 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

Yes, Proposition 32 would raise the minimum wage to $18/hour. This increase would make everyday items more expensive because businesses must pass higher costs to consumers. Advocates argue this helps low-wage workers afford basic needs, while opponents warn it hurts small businesses and increases taxes for everyone.

O034 · V2-13 · Difficult

Wait, didn't Prop 36 already pass? What was the vote?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 36 was **not** passed in the 2024 election. It was a ballot measure that was **failed** by voters. In November 2024, California voters rejected Prop. 36 by a significant margin. The measure aimed to increase penalties for repeat theft and fentanyl trafficking, but it was defeated. This outcome is a major victory for advocates who argue it wasted taxpayer money on prisons instead of funding treatment and crime prevention programs.

The pre-election guide does not supply this requested information.

Reference notes and official pages

The pre-election guide cannot establish eventual results. No outside knowledge.

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c04 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c04 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c05 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

Proposition 36 was **not** passed in the 2024 election. It was a ballot measure that was **failed** by voters.

In November 2024, California voters rejected Prop. 36 by a significant margin. The measure aimed to increase penalties for repeat theft and fentanyl trafficking, but it was defeated. This outcome is a major victory for advocates who argue it wasted taxpayer money on prisons instead of funding treatment and crime prevention programs.

O035 · V2-10 · Everyday

How much more would we spend on prisons and courts if this passes?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

PDF page 58 ↗ · PDF page 61 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

State: several tens to low hundreds of millions annually; local: tens of millions annually. Estimates, not exact costs.

PDF page 58

PDF page 61

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p062-c04 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c01 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p060-c02 · PDF page 60 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p063-c00 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided passages do not contain specific figures or estimates for the additional cost to prisons and courts if Proposition 36 passes."
}

O036 · V2-07 · Everyday

If the minimum wage goes up, could people lose their jobs?

Voter-visible answer

The proposal would cost thousands of jobs if raised too fast. [CA2024-p041-c02]

PDF page 39 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 39

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p041-c02 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p039-c01 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p038-c01 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p039-c00 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p097-c05 · PDF page 97 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposal would cost thousands of jobs if raised too fast.", "source_id": "CA2024-p041-c02", "quote": "raising the minimum wage, especially when we raise it TOO FAST, costs thousands of jobs,"}], "missing": ""}

O037 · V2-02 · Everyday

Is this money all for K-12 schools, or do community colleges get some too?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 2 authorizes $10 billion in bonds to repair and upgrade K-12 schools and community colleges. While the measure explicitly funds both, the question asks if community colleges receive money. The answer is yes. The text confirms funding for "K–12 public schools and community colleges." Proponents argue this ensures students have safe, modern facilities and access to job training. Critics worry about rising property taxes, but the measure includes state matching funds to help districts cover costs without raising local taxes. Ultimately, the goal is to improve education and safety for all students across the state.

PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$8.5 billion for public schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges.

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p018-c01 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p014-c00 · PDF page 14 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c02 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

Proposition 2 authorizes $10 billion in bonds to repair and upgrade K-12 schools and community colleges. While the measure explicitly funds both, the question asks if community colleges receive money. The answer is yes.

The text confirms funding for "K–12 public schools and community colleges." Proponents argue this ensures students have safe, modern facilities and access to job training. Critics worry about rising property taxes, but the measure includes state matching funds to help districts cover costs without raising local taxes. Ultimately, the goal is to improve education and safety for all students across the state.

O038 · V2-12 · Difficult

If this school bond passes, how much would it add to my own tax bill each year?

Voter-visible answer

If Proposition 2 passes, it would add approximately $500 million to your annual tax bill each year. This amount is needed to repay the $10 billion bond borrowed for school renovations. The state would pay this from its General Fund over 35 years.

PDF page 17 ↗ · PDF page 64 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

No invented individual tax bill. The PDF does not supply the necessary individual inputs.

PDF page 17

PDF page 64

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c01 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p064-c03 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p074-c00 · PDF page 74 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p064-c02 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

Raw model output

If Proposition 2 passes, it would add approximately $500 million to your annual tax bill each year. This amount is needed to repay the $10 billion bond borrowed for school renovations. The state would pay this from its General Fund over 35 years.

O039 · V2-03 · Everyday

How much would we be paying back each year, and for how long?

Voter-visible answer

The estimated repayment would be about $500 million each year for 35 years. [CA2024-p016-c02]

PDF page 14 ↗ · PDF page 17 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

About $500 million annually for 35 years. These are estimates.

PDF page 14

PDF page 17

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p064-c02 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p064-c03 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c01 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c00 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The estimated repayment would be about $500 million each year for 35 years.", "source_id": "CA2024-p016-c02", "quote": "The estimated cost to repay the bond would be about $500 million each year (annually) over a 35-year period."}], "missing": ""}

O040 · V2-02 · Everyday

Is this money all for K-12 schools, or do community colleges get some too?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$8.5 billion for public schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges.

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p018-c01 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p014-c00 · PDF page 14 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c02 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided passages do not specify whether the $10 billion in bonds authorized by Proposition 2 are allocated exclusively to K-12 schools or also include funding for community colleges."
}

O041 · V2-07 · Everyday

If the minimum wage goes up, could people lose their jobs?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 39 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 39

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p041-c02 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p039-c01 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p038-c01 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p039-c00 · PDF page 39 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p097-c05 · PDF page 97 · text of proposed laws

Raw model output

{
  "status": "answered",
  "claims": [
    "Proposition 32 could cost thousands of jobs if raised too fast, especially impacting vulnerable populations.",
    "Proposition 32 could cost thousands of jobs if raised too fast, especially impacting vulnerable populations."
  ],
  "missing": ""
}

O042 · V2-12 · Difficult

If this school bond passes, how much would it add to my own tax bill each year?

Voter-visible answer

information not found in the ballot policy

PDF page 17 ↗ · PDF page 64 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

No invented individual tax bill. The PDF does not supply the necessary individual inputs.

PDF page 17

PDF page 64

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c01 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p064-c03 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p074-c00 · PDF page 74 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p064-c02 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

Raw model output

{
  "status": "not_in_guide",
  "claims": [],
  "missing": "The provided guide does not contain information about the specific tax bill amount an individual would pay."
}

O043 · V2-10 · Everyday

How much more would we spend on prisons and courts if this passes?

Voter-visible answer

If Prop. 36 passes, California would spend significantly more on prisons and courts. Advocacy groups warn it could cost taxpayers billions annually, as it turns simple drug possession into a felony. This shift would slash funding for essential services like mental health treatment, victim support, and youth programs. While some argue it targets serious crimes like fentanyl trafficking, experts note it locks up low-level offenders and fails to address root causes. Ultimately, the measure is criticized for being an extreme, one-size-fits-all approach that prioritizes incarceration over effective crime prevention and rehabilitation.

PDF page 58 ↗ · PDF page 61 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

State: several tens to low hundreds of millions annually; local: tens of millions annually. Estimates, not exact costs.

PDF page 58

PDF page 61

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p062-c04 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c01 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p060-c02 · PDF page 60 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p063-c00 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

If Prop. 36 passes, California would spend significantly more on prisons and courts. Advocacy groups warn it could cost taxpayers billions annually, as it turns simple drug possession into a felony. This shift would slash funding for essential services like mental health treatment, victim support, and youth programs. While some argue it targets serious crimes like fentanyl trafficking, experts note it locks up low-level offenders and fails to address root causes. Ultimately, the measure is criticized for being an extreme, one-size-fits-all approach that prioritizes incarceration over effective crime prevention and rehabilitation.

O044 · V2-02 · Everyday

Is this money all for K-12 schools, or do community colleges get some too?

Voter-visible answer

Source check failed. This answer needs human review; try a simpler question or read the official sources.

PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

$8.5 billion for public schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges.

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p018-c01 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p014-c00 · PDF page 14 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c02 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Raw model output

{"status": "answered", "claims": [{"text": "The proposed allocation is for public school and community college facilities.", "source_id": "CA2024-p014-c00", "quote": "public school and community 2 COLLEGE FACILITIES."}], "missing": ""}

O045 · V2-15 · Difficult

How much of the school bond is for community colleges, and will my local college get any?

Voter-visible answer

Proposition 2 allocates about $1.5 billion specifically for California Community College facilities. Yes, your local college will receive funding. The measure requires districts to provide a "local match" of funds, meaning you will likely see an increase in your property tax bill to cover the bond costs.

PDF page 16 ↗

Reference notes and official pages

PDF page 16

Retrieved source packet

CA2024-p018-c01 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p015-c01 · PDF page 15 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c02 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p014-c01 · PDF page 14 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

Raw model output

Proposition 2 allocates about $1.5 billion specifically for California Community College facilities. Yes, your local college will receive funding. The measure requires districts to provide a "local match" of funds, meaning you will likely see an increase in your property tax bill to cover the bond costs.

Read the answers.Rate independently.

I thought shoplifting under $950 wasn't a felony. Would this change that?

Voter-visible answer

PDF page 58

PDF page 59

CA2024-p059-c00 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p059-c01 · PDF page 59 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p128-c01 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p058-c00 · PDF page 58 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p128-c02 · PDF page 128 · text of proposed laws

If this school bond passes, how much would it add to my own tax bill each year?

Voter-visible answer

PDF page 17

PDF page 64

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c01 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p064-c03 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

CA2024-p074-c00 · PDF page 74 · text of proposed laws

CA2024-p064-c02 · PDF page 64 · Legislative Analyst overview of bond debt

Will the minimum wage increase make everyday things more expensive?

Voter-visible answer

PDF page 39

CA2024-p041-c03 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p041-c00 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c02 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p041-c01 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p097-c03 · PDF page 97 · text of proposed laws

I work for a big company with about 100 employees. When would the $17 and $18 wages kick in?

Voter-visible answer

PDF page 38

CA2024-p038-c02 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p040-c00 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p040-c01 · PDF page 40 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p038-c00 · PDF page 38 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p041-c02 · PDF page 41 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p098-c02 · PDF page 98 · text of proposed laws

I'm worried about theft. Should I vote yes on Prop 36?

Voter-visible answer

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c03 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c00 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c02 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c01 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

How much of the school bond is for community colleges, and will my local college get any?

Voter-visible answer

PDF page 16

CA2024-p018-c01 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p015-c01 · PDF page 15 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c02 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p014-c01 · PDF page 14 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

What would Prop 2 actually pay for, and how much are we borrowing?

Voter-visible answer

PDF page 14

PDF page 16

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p019-c04 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p017-c00 · PDF page 17 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p016-c01 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

CA2024-p018-c04 · PDF page 18 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

Wait, didn't Prop 36 already pass? What was the vote?

Voter-visible answer

CA2024-p062-c05 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p062-c04 · PDF page 62 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c02 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c04 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c05 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p063-c03 · PDF page 63 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

What would Prop 2 actually pay for, and how much are we borrowing?

Voter-visible answer

PDF page 14

PDF page 16

CA2024-p019-c03 · PDF page 19 · advocacy arguments and rebuttals

CA2024-p016-c02 · PDF page 16 · official summary and Legislative Analyst analysis

Read the answers.
Rate independently.