There’s really no way around it: The results of last week’s election are devastating for a multitude of social causes and communities.

But the work of creating a better world didn’t start with this election, and it’s not going to stop now. The organizations we support, which are tackling everything from housing insecurity to protecting vulnerable LGBTQ people, are what give us hope in this dark moment.

Californians unsurprisingly voted to give their 54 electoral college votes to Vice President Kamala Harris, but they also decided the fate of no fewer than 10 ballot measures. What can we say — the good people of the Golden State love direct democracy. Let’s take a look at eight of the ballot measures that Impact Labs kept a close eye on. We’ll cover what voters chose to do — or not do — and how this impacts the areas we are involved in with our funds. 

Housing and Shelter

Propositions 5 & 33

Two ballot measures seeking to address California’s housing crisis, Propositions 5 and 33, both failed.

Prop 5 would have made it easier for California municipalities to invest in local housing and infrastructure. Currently, it’s not that easy for local California governments to borrow money if they want to undertake new building projects. 

Most city and county bonds require voter approval, and they need at least 67% of the vote to pass. Prop 5 would have lowered that number to 55% of the vote. Supporters, which included the state Democratic Party and California YIMBY, argued this was a matter of removing some of the many barriers to building housing, including affordable housing, in California. Opponents, however, raised twice as much; they included the state Chamber of Commerce and Republican Party.

While we’re disappointed that the path to building more affordable housing hasn’t gotten any easier, our Housing and Shelter Fund continues to support local nonprofits providing critical resources and services to our unhoused neighbors.

Proposition 33, which also failed, would have allowed local governments to protect residents by strengthening rent control. It would have repealed a nearly three decade old law called “Costa-Hawkins,” which has severely limited how much local governments can curb rent increases by landlords. 

Under the proposition, cities and counties could have controlled rents on any housing and allow governments to limit how much a landlord can increase rent when a new renter moves in. That’s an attractive proposal for a state suffering from one of the worst housing crises in the world. And initially, it seemed like a slim majority of Californians supported the proposal — about the same proportion as state residents who are rent burdened.

However, support declined in the several weeks leading up to election day. In part, this was due to a well-funded opposition campaign. But there’s also the undeniable fact that this opposition campaign had a convincing message: Prop 33 wasn’t the solution it pretended to be.

That’s why some curious alliances formed. On the state level, the Republican Party opposed the bill. But some local Republican leaders expressed support, noting that they could use their newfound powers to enact rent controls draconian enough to effectively halt new development. That’s also why some Democrats voiced opposition to the bill, despite the state Party coming out in favor. They argued that the bill would further restrict the construction of new housing in a state that already struggles to build; any relief renters received from rent controls permitted by the proposition would be outweighed by the harm further restrictions on development would have on housing prices.

Here’s where Prop 34 comes in. On the surface, it seems focused on health care. But why did real estate lobbying groups pour tens of millions of dollars into a healthcare-focused proposition?

Because the proposition’s fine print would have effectively cut off the ability of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to conduct tenant advocacy. The wording of the bill was specific enough to lead the Foundation (and others) to conclude that Prop 34 was nothing more than a “revenge initiative” — payback for the Foundation’s attempt to get rent control measures, including Prop 33, passed.

LGBTQ Rights

Proposition 3

Proposition 3, which enshrines the right to same-sex marriage in the state constitution, passed handily. 

The measure repeals the embarrassing and homophobic Proposition 8, a measure that passed narrowly in 2008 and placed a prohibition on LGBTQ+ unions by defining marriage as between a man and woman. The Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California in 2013, and in 2015 the court ruled that all state must issue marriage licenses between same-sex couples and recognize marriages that were lawfully performed, meaning that Proposition 8 hasn’t had a material impact on Californians for a number of years.

But, you never know what this right-wing Supreme Court is capable of. Suppose they struck down Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that legalized LGBTQ marriage nationally, the language of Proposition 8 would still have been on the books and gay Californians could have been in trouble. Our LGBTQ Fund supports critical services, training and care for vulnerable queer people living in the San Francisco Bay Area, so supporting this measure was a no brainer for us. We’ll sleep more soundly tonight knowing that Proposition 3 has passed and the California Constitution will now recognizes the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. 

Education

Proposition 2 

Three cheers for more school funding! Proposition 2 – which approved $10 billion in state borrowing to fund repairs and upgrades for K-12 school buildings and community colleges in California – was voted through.

Repairs for California schools come entirely from state and local bonds, and because the state’s last school facilities bond failed at the ballot box in 2020, the state’s school repair account is running dry. The money will be distributed to districts through matching grants, and the match amount will depend on factors like the socioeconomic makeup of the district and the wealth in the community. 

Better educational facilities are linked to higher student achievement, and our school buildings are a basic public good. Impact Labs’ Education Fund provides educational services and resources for under-resourced children and adults in the San Francisco Bay Area, and we’re excited for them to potentially benefit from this money.

Hurricane Relief

Proposition 4

Once in a while, Impact Labs will launch a “flash fund” to support a cause that unexpectedly needs our attention. We most recently did this to support people impacted by Hurricanes Helene and Milton. These emergencies underscore just how vulnerable we all are to climate change and its impacts, which is why we’re thrilled that California’s Proposition 4 was approved by voters.

Prop 4 authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds to increase funding for critical climate protections and environmental infrastructure projects. $3.8 billion of the bond will go towards safe drinking water and water resilience, for example ensuring California’s ability to store water so it can be used during future droughts, as well as cleaning polluted water to make sure it’s potable. Other highlights include $1.5 billion for forest health and wildfire prevention, $700 million for renovating and building parks, $450 million to protect communities from extreme heat – and much more.

Proponents have rightly pointed out that this investment (repayment costs are pegged at $400 million per year over 40 years) will ultimately save California money, allowing the state to more proactively protect residents from the impacts of the climate emergency.

Criminal Justice and Labor

Propositions 6 and 32

Californians rejected Proposition 6 and Proposition 32, marking a bleak day for criminal justice and labor in the state.

Proposition 6 would have changed the state constitution to bar punishing inmates with involuntary work and disciplining those who refuse to work – i.e. outlawing slavery. Had the measure passed, it would have allowed incarcerated persons to voluntarily accept work assignments in exchange for credit to reduce their sentences. The state’s prison system currently employs nearly 40,000 incarcerated people who complete tasks like cooking, cleaning and firefighting. For their labor, they earn basically nothing. While those working as firefighters can earn as much as $10 a day, most earn less than 74 cents an hour.

Currently, minimum wage in California is $16 an hour. Proposition 32 would have bumped up the minimum wage to $17 an hour for the rest of 2024, and increased it to $18 an hour in January 2025. Working people need and deserve more than $16 an hour, and making enough money to live shouldn’t be a privilege only afforded to some.

Proposition 36

A fairly overwhelming majority of Californians voted in favor of Proposition 36. It was also called the “Homeless, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” and proponents claimed it would tackle these three problems that have dominated airwaves and minds in recent years. It would supposedly do this by repealing previous reforms to the state’s criminal justice system. Prop 36 will increase penalties for a host of crimes, turning misdemeanors into felonies and generally returning to a tough on crime approach.

This is a mistake. As the LA Times summarized, the decision to “rescind voters’ smart reforms, partially refill prisons and revive the disastrous war on drugs” will not actually combat homelessness or drug addiction — and is “at least as likely to do the opposite.” It will monopolize funding approved for mental health care, undermine programs that have been proven to reduce recidivism, and generally push California back toward the days of extreme mass incarceration. 

Prop 36 is not just self-defeating. The very logic motivating its creation, support, and passage is suspect. Crime rates in California are not soaring, as proponents of the Proposition claimed. General disorder, like street homelessness and public drug addiction, is also not quite the scourge some media sources would have you believe. Of course, even if the sensationalist narrative of anarchy was accurate — which, just to repeat, it’s not — Prop 36 would not be the solution. 

That’s because it doesn’t actually tackle the root causes of the problems supporters used to justify its passage. Homelessness, drug addiction, and petty crimes like shoplifting are not things that can be solved by getting tough. Waging war on these problems incorrectly pathologizes individuals suffering from serious problems who need help. Housing reform, mental health treatment, addiction care, economic support — these are the policies that would reduce homelessness, drug use, and petty theft. Prop 36 is a punitive measure that will inflict further suffering while doing nothing to resolve — in fact, actively worsening — the structural problems that caused this suffering in the first place.