California voters weighed 10 ballot propositions this year, and two of them remained nearly deadlocked with new vote totals released Thursday.

Proposition 32, which focuses on the state minimum wage, and Proposition 34, which focuses on health care spending, had a margin of less than 2%, with ballots still being counted across the state .

These margins were very different from the large advantages favoring the passage of Propositions 3, 35 and 36.

Here’s more information on the 10 voting proposals Thursday at 5 p.m.:

LIVE ELECTION RESULTS: View a graph of the latest vote tallies

Prop. 2 (Education financing)

Four years after rejecting a proposal to sell $15 billion in bonds to finance new school buildings, California voters appear poised to break that cycle by passing Proposition 2, a $10 billion version of a proposal similar school construction, according to the ballots counted Thursday. Yes votes represented 57.1%.

Proponents of Proposition 2 note that California’s low-income school districts rely heavily on bonds to finance new construction and develop new services, such as pre-kindergarten programs.

Opponents argue that Proposition 2 is discriminatory because low-income districts would receive a larger share of the money.

Prop. 3 (Marriage equality)

A proposal to amend the state constitution to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right already guaranteed under federal law, was far ahead according to published vote results: 61.3 percent to 38, 7%.

The idea of ​​codifying the right to same-sex marriage has gained traction in California and other states following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs, which allows states to set their own rules in matters of abortion. As part of that decision, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court should review the 2013 decision legalizing same-sex marriage, and others echoed that sentiment.

In addition to enshrining marriage equality in California, Proposition 3 also repeals Proposition 8, a 2008 law that banned same-sex marriage. Although federal law overturned Proposition 8, the law remained in effect.

Prop. 4 (Financing of environmental projects)

Voters are ready to accept an offer to add about $10 billion in bond debt to finance various climate change projects. Yes votes represented 58.2%.

Among other things, Proposition 4 would dedicate $3.8 billion in new bond revenue to water quality improvements and projects to mitigate the effects of floods and droughts, two phenomena more pronounced in Californian ping-pong between wet and dry rainy seasons.

Supporters argue the bonds are necessary because the state recently spent about $10 billion on environmental programs. Opponents point out that the bonds are expensive and would cost state taxpayers $400 million a year over 40 years.

Prop. 5 (Affordable Housing)

Voters opposed a proposal to make it easier to pass tax-related bonds, lowering the approval threshold from 66% to 55%, according to tallies released Thursday. No vote represented 56.1%.

Supporters say giving a third of voters a veto over any tax increase is fundamentally undemocratic. Although Proposition 5 would not completely end this imbalance, it would significantly reduce it.

Opponents of Proposition 5 say local taxes tend to fall disproportionately on property owners, so the tax burden itself is undemocratic. They also argue that the high threshold for approving a tax prevents what they view as poor spending decisions.

Prop. 6 (Involuntary servitude)

It appears California’s inmates will continue to work for little or no pay, as figures released Thursday show voters opposed to Proposition 6, an attempt to amend the state constitution to ban involuntary servitude in prisons. state prisons. The no vote on proposition 6 led from 54.6% to 45.4%

Proposition 6’s proposed rules would end a practice of punishing prisoners by forcing them to work as, among other things, cooks, janitors, construction workers and firefighters. Proposition 6 calls for allowing inmates to work such jobs in order to get credit for leave.

Supporters say forced labor in state prisons is a vestige of slavery and that the practice disproportionately affects people of color. Opponents argue that changing prison labor rules is a form of relief that is not affordable at a time when the state is facing budget shortfalls.

Prop. 32 (Increase in minimum wage)

It remains unclear whether California’s lowest-paid workers will get a raise starting this month, as the vote count Thursday showed only a slight lead — 51.9% to 48.1%. – for those who would reject proposition 32.

The current minimum wage in California is $16 an hour, although a complex set of exemptions based on industry type and geography already means slightly higher wages for many workers.

Proposition 32, however, would extend the increases to about 2 million people who currently earn the social minimum. The new minimum would be $17 per hour in 2025 and $18 per hour in 2026.

Supporters say higher minimum wages reflect the realities of life in California. They also argue that many minimum wage workers are forced to rely on state food and housing assistance programs, and that forcing employers to raise wages would benefit state taxpayers and local economies.

Opponents say a higher minimum wage will lead to fewer job creations and possibly layoffs. They note that the state delayed raising the minimum wage for public workers when budget shortfalls became apparent last year and that private businesses should be allowed to follow the same rules.

Prop. 33 (Rent control)

An attempt to expand rent control in California, Proposition 33, appeared headed for a crushing defeat. More than 61% of votes cast were opposed to the proposal on Thursday.

Although many California cities have had rent control for decades, these rules have been blunted by Costa-Hawkins, a law that limits rent control to homes and apartment buildings built before 1995 and allows landlords to ‘raise rents when new tenants move in. Proposition 33 aims to allow cities to set rent rules that work for most of their residents.

California has a much higher share of renters (44%) than the national average (about 35%), and proponents of Proposition 33 say most of these renters pay more than a third of their income to keep a roof over their heads.

Proponents of Proposition 33 say the rules would ease rent obligations for millions of Californians and help slow the state’s growing housing crisis.

Opponents say the law would have the opposite effect.

Prop. 34 (Health expenditure)

The final vote count on Thursday showed only a small lead for passage of Proposition 34, a law that, if passed, could end up being challenged again in court. Yes votes represented 51.%.

Essentially, Proposition 34 is a proposed change to the health care law. This would require a very specific subset of healthcare providers to set aside 98% of any discount they receive on the purchase of drugs specifically for patient care.

But the world of health providers described in the measure is so narrow that many believe it applies to just one entity: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS health centers in California and 14 other states.

Opponents say the purpose of Proposition 34 is to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for advocating lower rents and other concepts that the real estate industry opposes. Supporters say the law’s purpose is to incentivize accountability; Federal drug price reductions should be used to help patients.

It is against federal and state law to develop a proposal for an individual or business.

Prop. 35 (Health tax)

Voters apparently want California to spend about $35 billion from Medi-Cal taxes over the next four years on Medi-Cal, the state insurance program for low-income Californians, not the general fund, according to the results published Thursday. Yes votes represented 66.9%.

This spending trajectory is the underlying promise of Proposition 35, which seeks to change a long-standing Sacramento practice of using medical taxes to close tax gaps in non-health care areas.

Proponents of Proposition 35 argue the system needs a fiscal boost. Opponents say the measure is too restrictive on how money is spent in Sacramento.

Prop. 36 (Retail theft and drug crimes)

A decade after passing Proposition 47, which sought to reduce penalties and incarceration rates for drug crimes, California voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 36. Vote totals released Thursday showed a huge lead for the adoption of the electoral measure, from 70.2% to 29.8%.

• See also: Voter-approved California Proposition 36 gives law enforcement teeth to drug users in rehab and limits thefts, officials say

The new measure reclassifies some misdemeanors as misdemeanors and creates a new category of misdemeanors – “treatment-requiring misdemeanors” – that would offer drug users convicted of certain misdemeanors the opportunity to enter drug treatment or spend up to three years on probation. prison.

The vote reflects widespread frustration over increases in retail thefts, car burglaries and the apparent realization among some criminals that stealing property worth less than $1,000 won’t get you in prison. One study found that shoplifting involving goods valued at $950 or less jumped about 28 percent during a five-year period that ended last year.

Proponents of Proposition 36 link the law to homelessness, saying the increase in people struggling to find housing involves people who also struggle with addiction.

Opponents say the law is likely to refill jails and prisons that have become less populated since Proposition 47 passed, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.