PROPS 33 and 34 challenge california voter EDUCATION
Los Angeles Times/ Contributor
In recent Nov. ballot, California voters faced two controversial propositions: 33 and 34. These propositions have raised eyebrows regarding their true objectives and their implications for public policy. Both 33 and 34 are linked to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and have been described as misleading by design due to their complex messaging and potential consequences that extend beyond their surface-level objectives.
Proposition 33 aimed to repeal the prohibition against local governments establishing rent limits. Although it was presented as a tactic to enhance housing affordability, it was still met with strong opposition from Californians. The overwhelming 60 percent opposition vote reflects the public's concern over the implications of allowing local jurisdictions to dictate rent prices, particularly in a state already in a housing crisis. Consequently, this has been highly contested among the public, as many argue that 33 could worsen the issues it claims to address and solve. Some worry that these jurisdictions would lead to an increase in rent prices and further exclude low-income residents. The AHF is a prominent supporter of this proposition and has been accused of using its influence to push for policies that would primarily benefit their interests, such as their rent-controlled properties in Skid Row.
On the other hand, Proposition 34 would require healthcare providers to allocate 98 percent of their profits from prescription drug revenues toward direct patient care. However, careful examination reveals that the measure seems strategically targeted by the AHF, which has invested interest in how these funds are being managed. Therefore, while the proposition advertises its goal of enhancing patients' care, the underlying agenda raises questions about whether it is truly aimed to improve healthcare access or to appeal to the foundation's operational goals.
The connections between these propositions are largely based on their shared reliance on the AHF and the broader implications for housing and healthcare in California. Both propositions mask the motives that could extensively undermine the community’s ability to understand the proposition and their influence in supporting it. The public’s genuine understanding of these propositions is critical to the future of society. Yet, many voters may not fully be aware of the fine distinction of the implications due to the seemingly “straightforward” language. Samo student Piper Forsyth (’25) gave insight on the steps she took to ensure she clearly understood how to vote.
“For Propositions 33 and 34, I felt less confident on how informed I was before my initial research,” Forsyth said. “I first read my sample ballot, looking at the unbiased descriptions about what each of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes entailed. Then, I read through the California Voter Information Guide online and checked endorsements to see if they matched up with my formed opinion.”
Ultimately, Proposition 33 was not passed, and Proposition 34 passed at just over 50 percent. The outcomes of these measures could significantly shape the landscape of California’s future—particularly in the housing policies and healthcare accessibility. Since Proposition 34 has been passed, it reinforces the AHF’s influence and control over housing and healthcare resources. This has raised concerns about the long-term effects on low-income residents and the integrity behind public state policies. That said, voters’ awareness and engagement are crucial to navigating complex issues, even when not on a national scale, considering that these propositions could drastically redefine the entire state of California.
