On this year’s ballot, eligible District residents will elect two trustees for the District Board of Trustees and vote on 10 statewide propositions. Residents will also vote on local measures, depending on where they live. Read our endorsements for the 2024 ballot below.
District Board of Trustees
As Area B and Area E trustees Carrie DuBois and Shawneece Stevenson step down from their respective board positions, voters will select two new board members to take their place.
In Area B, educator and Summit Prep Executive Director Mary Beth Thompson, former student trustee and recent Carlmont High School graduate Jacob Yuryev, and former PayPal executive Daniel Torunian are vying for the seat. The area includes parts of Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City.
The Editorial Board endorses Thompson because her thorough experience and understanding of student, teacher, and administrative perspectives as an educator will bring balance to an often-contentious board. Yuryev and Torunian lack a comprehensive understanding of students’ and educators’ perspectives, all of whom are crucial stakeholders at the District level.
Read our full endorsement of Thompson here and our interviews with all three candidates here.
In Area E, youth development nonprofit Executive Director Jon Bryant, San Jose State University professor Maria Cruz, and East Palo Alto author and community organizer Tonga Victoria are competing for the seat. Area E includes EPA and parts of North Fair Oaks, Redwood City, and East Menlo Park.
During the candidate forum, Bryant struggled to take concrete positions on issues like detracking, District communication, post-graduation preparation, and school safety.
As a local parent and Mexican American Studies professor, Cruz would add a balanced perspective to the board. Yet, in interviews and the recent candidate public forum, she showed a limited understanding of District policies and processes like mental health services and funding allocation.
Victoria has shown a greater understanding of the needs of her community and has more experience working in local schools, but we disagree with her interest in reinstating a freshman honors English course and standardizing a teacher curriculum review process.
While both Cruz and Victoria could be quality board members, we have reservations about each, so the Editorial Board makes no endorsement. You can read our interviews with all three candidates here.
Ballot Measures
Ballot measures dictate legislation through a popular vote as opposed to the state legislature. About half of the propositions are initiatives to pass new laws or referendums to repeal existing laws put on the ballot through petitions. Others would change previous propositions or the state constitution. In these cases, the state legislature has already approved the amendment but needs popular support to officially pass it. Any legislation involving bonds also requires a popular vote. Bonds are often criticized as expensive ways to pay for government projects because they accrue interest, creating future debt that is often passed on to taxpayers.
In general, the Editorial Board leans towards endorsing bond bills and constitutional amendments that have previously been passed by knowledgeable elected officials in the state legislature.
State Ballot Measures
No on Prop 2: State Bonds for School Repairs
Prop 2 authorizes $10 billion in bonds to pay for school repairs, construction, and facilities, which will be paid back through the state’s general fund at $500 million per year for 35 years. The proposition allocates $8.5 billion to K-12 schools and the remaining $1.5 billion for community college. The $8.5 billion for K-12 is further divided into $4 billion for renovations, $3.5 billion for new construction, $600 million for Career Technical Education facilities, and $600 million for charter schools.
Historically, California has provided funding for school repairs and construction through bonds. Prop 2 would fill the gap left by the depletion of funds from 2016’s $7 billion bond bill. However, Prop 2’s distribution system prevents districts with lower property values from accessing as much funding as they need. Under Prop 2, state funding would be distributed by matching money raised through local bonds, which are capped based on property value.
Although there is a system that increases state contribution and decreases local contribution based on district size and financial hardship, it does not sufficiently address the inequitable distribution of funds. The Editorial Board opposes Prop 2 with the hopes that the legislature will pass a more equitable school repairs bond in the near future.
Yes on Prop 3: Same-Sex Marriage
Prop 3 reverses 2008’s Prop 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment. While the 2015 Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges made same-sex marriage legal federally, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization signaled the court might consider overturning Obergefell. If that were to happen, California law would revert to Prop 8, making same-sex marriage unconstitutional. At the time of Obergefell, same-sex marriages were still legally recognized in California, though due to Prop 8, they were not protected by the state constitution.
The Editorial Board endorses Prop 3. While Prop 3 has little current impact, the constitutional amendment could protect marriages in the future and is symbolic of our state’s commitment to LGBTQ+ rights.
Yes on Prop 4: State Bonds for Climate
Prop 4 allows the state to take out $10 billion in bonds to be paid back at $400 million per year for 40 years. The $10 billion would be divided into $3.8 billion for clean water and other water-related projects, $1.5 billion for wildfire safety, and $1.2 billion for responses to rising sea levels. The remaining funds would be split between extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity programs, sustainable farming, outdoor access, and clean air programs. The bill also requires that 50% of funds go to projects that would support disadvantaged communities.
The Editorial Board endorses Prop 4 as a step forward in climate action.
Yes on Prop 5: Threshold for Housing and Infrastructure Bonds
Currently, local bonds require 66.67% support to pass. Prop 5 aims to make housing and infrastructure bonds easier to pass by lowering the threshold to 55%.
Passing bond bills, especially those that fund affordable housing projects, is difficult even without the requirement of two-thirds support. This bond would make it easier to enact important infrastructure projects while still requiring supermajority support.
The Editorial Board agrees with the state legislature and endorses Prop 5 to improve infrastructure.
Yes on Prop 6: Involuntary Servitude as Criminal Punishment
Prop 6 is an amendment to the California Constitution that would outlaw involuntary servitude in prisons. Proponents argue that involuntary servitude, a remnant of slavery, severely limits the amount of time incarcerated people can dedicate to furthering their education or receiving treatment for drug usage. Prisoners could still work for well below the minimum wage should Prop 6 pass, but they would have more control over where and when they work.
The Editorial Board endorses Prop 6 as a small advancement in criminal justice reform.
Yes on Prop 32: State Minimum Wage
Prop 32 raises the state minimum wage for businesses with more than 25 employees to $17 an hour for the remainder of 2024 and $18 an hour in 2025. For businesses with 25 employees or less, the minimum wage would increase to $17 by Jan. 1, 2025, and $18 an hour by Jan. 1, 2026.
This increase is modest but would help workers in the face of the rising cost of living, which is estimated to be $53,171 per year in California. An $18 hourly wage pays $37,440 per year for full-time workers.
Critics claim increasing the minimum wage will worsen inflation, but historically, such price hikes have been negligible and not proportional to salary increases.
The Editorial Board endorses Prop 32. The proposition is a small step toward closing the gap between the cost of living and earnings with minimal impact on consumer prices.
No on Prop 33: State Rent Control Restrictions
Prop 33 would repeal current and prevent future state-wide restrictions on rent control. The bill specifically targets the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prevents cities and counties from limiting rent increases on properties built after 1995 and all single-family homes and condominiums.
Rent control is one part of solving California’s housing affordability crisis. Prop 33’s opponents claim, however, that rent control could limit the construction of new housing if overused when overused. They argue that less housing will be built if landlords know the amount they can profit will be restricted by local laws. Essentially, Prop 33 could inadvertently worsen the housing crisis.
Prohibiting future state-level restrictions on rent control is an overreach and should not be done through the petition process. The Editorial Board opposes Prop 33.
No on Prop 34: Healthcare Company Spending
Prop 34 restricts how one healthcare nonprofit, the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, spends its money.
Federal policy requires drug companies to offer discounted prices to healthcare entities that sell medications to low-income patients. When these patients buy drugs, their health insurance covers the cost by paying the healthcare nonprofit. Insurance companies pay nonprofits the full price, not the reduced one, so healthcare organizations turn a profit.
Currently, nonprofits under this policy are able to spend their profits in a number of ways as long as the profits go toward patient health broadly. Prop 34 would require organizations that meet specific criteria to spend these profits directly on patient care.
The criteria include participating in the federal drug discount program, operating in California, currently or previously having Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for low-income individuals, or Medicare contracts, spending $100 million outside of direct patient care in a ten-year period, and currently or previously operating and owning “multifamily dwellings [with] a combined total of at least 500 violations that were categorized in violation severity level ‘high.’”
The only organization that falls under this category is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The foundation uses some of its profits to support campaigns for rent control, maintaining that housing is an important factor in health. The primary supporters of this bill are real estate agencies who oppose rent control.
Hurting individual organizations is not an appropriate use of the proposition system. The Editorial Board opposes Prop 34.
No on Prop 35: Medi-Cal Taxes
Prop 35 makes permanent a current tax on Managed Care Organizations. The state of California levies the MCO tax on healthcare plans that manage patient care. Health insurance providers benefit because the federal government pays them for patients with Medi-Cal. The tax has to be renewed every few years, but it’s largely uncontroversial in California’s mostly-Democratic state legislature.
Prop 35 establishes the tax indefinitely, assuming the federal government approves. It also adds new restrictions on the spending of MCO tax revenue. Under Prop 35, money earned from the MCO tax would have to be spent on Medi-Cal, but community health workers, private duty nurses, and other Medi-Cal services would get less state support than they currently do. Organizations like The Children’s Partnership oppose Prop 35, claiming these funding cuts could force them to shut down. Changing these restrictions would require three-fourths support from both houses of the state legislature or another proposition, a high bar.
This proposition makes significant, long-lasting, and potentially harmful regulations without the insight of lawmakers. These changes would be better made through the state legislature. The Editorial Board opposes Prop 35.
No on Prop 36: Punishments for Minor Offenses
Prop 36 would recategorize certain misdemeanors, mainly theft, as felonies, giving offenders longer sentences. It would also mandate rehabilitation for recurring drug-related offenses, which, if not completed, would result in a prison sentence.
Prop 36’s supporters argue it’s necessary to crack down on petty crimes given the recent increase in shoplifting. Longer prison sentences, however, do little to reduce crime, as they do not increase an offender’s certainty of being caught.
This measure is harsh and a step backward for criminal justice reform. The Editorial Board opposes Prop 36.
Local Ballot Measures
Yes on Measure U: Local Bonds for Menlo Park City School District Repairs
Measure U is a local bond measure that would give $123.6 million in funding to Menlo Park City School District schools for facility repairs. MPCSD would use the money for fire safety measures, new air conditioning, and earthquake-safe construction. It would also fund shade structures on playgrounds, new smartboards, and electric vehicle charging stations.
Measure U does not have the same equity issues as Prop 2 because it is a local bond supporting only MPCSD schools. If Prop 2 passes, the state government will partially match money raised through Measure U, but Prop 2 is not necessary for Measure U to take effect.
The Editorial Board endorses Measure U to support local elementary and middle schools.
Yes on Measure S: Ravenswood City School District Increased Tax for Early Childhood Education
Measure S would increase an existing tax on Ravenswood City School District residents starting in 2026. Funds would be allocated to preschool, early childhood, elementary, and middle school core subjects, teacher recruitment, and teacher retention. The tax would raise around $2.7 million annually.
The Editorial Board endorses Measure S. Although RCSD has had greater funding in recent years, the district provides more comprehensive support to its students than surrounding ones. The tax increase is necessary to adequately fund these programs.
Yes on Measure JJ: EPA Tax for Housing and Administrative Cost
Measure JJ reallocates funds from the current 2.5% tax on residential rental units to rental assistance, affordable housing, and preventing homelessness. The tax would generate around $1.45 million annually and cannot be passed on to tenants. At most, 20% of the tax would be spent on administrative costs.
The Editorial Board endorses Measure JJ because it creates more specific guidelines for spending an already existing tax.
Yes on Measure CC: Increase Tax on Hotels and Short-Term Rentals to Balance Menlo Park Budget
Measure CC increases a current 12% tax on guests for hotels and short-term rentals like AirBnB and Vrbo rentals to 15.5%. Revenue from the increase would go to the city’s budget with no specific purpose.
The Editorial Board endorses Measure CC because it does not raise taxes on Menlo Park residents and would provide the city with greater funds.
This year’s election is on Nov. 5 and polls close at 8 p.m. Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by your county elections office no later than Nov. 12. Register or preregister to vote here.
Morgan Baudler and Ella Thomson contributed to this article.
