Editor’s Note: The Coronado News will have complete online coverage of election day on Nov. 5. However, community members should not expect to see final election results today. San Diego County uses the vote center model under the California Voters Choice Act, meaning elections are no longer a one-day event. The Coronado News will cover polling throughout the day, as well as coverage of the first unofficial results posting around 8 p.m. Updates will continue throughout the night and the following days.
There will soon be a shift in leadership at Coronado City Hall and in local schools. Today is the last day to vote for local officials and in the Presidential General Election.
Mayor Richard Bailey will term out of his seat at the end of the year, and three candidates are vying to fill that position: current council members Mike Donovan, John Duncan and Casey Tanaka.
Six candidates – Mark Fleming, Andrew Gade, Christine Mott, Amy Steward, Mark Warner and Laura Wilkinson Sinton – are running for two open City Council seats. If Duncan, a current council member, wins the mayoral race and leaves his seat vacant, the council will need to appoint someone to fill that seat or hold a special election.
At the same time, the Coronado Unified School District has two trustee seats up for grabs and four candidates are running for those four-year terms – Shawnee Barton Merriman, Renee Cavanaugh, Bill Sandke and Fitzhugh Lee.
Meanwhile, there are 10 statewide propositions included in this year’s ballot that Coronado voters will weigh in on. Here is a breakdown of those propositions:
Prop. 2: Bonds for building schools
With this proposition, the state could borrow $10 billion to build or renovate K-12 public schools and community college facilities. According to California’s Legislative Analyst’s office, $8.5 billion would be reserved for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion is directed toward upper education.
To repay the bond, the state would need to pay an estimated $500 million per year over a 35-year period. The Legislative Analyst Office said the potential effect on local costs statewide is unclear.
Prop. 3: Constitutional right to marriage
While federal courts have said that same-sex marriage is legal, outdated language in the California Constitution from Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
This proposition would update the Constitution to match what federal courts have said.
Prop. 4: Bonds for climate change
Proposition 4, also known as the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Prevention and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024, authorizes a $10 million bond toward climate programs:
- $3.8 billion would go toward drought, flood and water supply, meaning money would be used to store water for future droughts, clean polluted water so it’s safe to drink and reduce the risk of floods by capturing and reusing stormwater.
- $1.5 billion would be used to improve the health of forests and reduce the risk of wildfires.
- $1.2 billion would restore coastal areas and protect from rising sea levels.
- $1.2 billion is for land conservation and habitat restoration.
- $850 million would go toward the development of wind turbines off the coast of California.
- $700 million would be used for expanding parks.
- $450 million would go toward protecting communities from extreme heat.
- $300 million would go toward agriculture, specifically for activities that encourage farmers to improve soil health, reduce air pollution and use less water.
It would cost the state $400 million annually for 40 years to repay this bond.
The effect on local governments, according to California’s Legislative Analyst’s office, would vary.
State funding could replace the funding that local governments would have to pay out of its own for certain projects. Or, it could encourage the governing body to spend more money on larger projects than they would.
Prop. 5: Local bonds for affordable housing
This proposition makes it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects. Currently, to borrow money, cities and counties require the support of at least two-thirds of voters. With Proposition 5, that number would be lowered to 55%.
This would make it easier for local governments to approve bonds that would increase the funding available for housing assistance.
If a city chooses to receive a bond, carrying costs would rise for the local government, and in turn, community members would pay more in property taxes.
Prop. 6: Ending forced labor in state prisons
Currently, prison inmates can be required to work as a punishment for crime. This is known as involuntary servitude. The Legislative Analyst’s office says that many of these workers are paid less than $1 an hour, but they can also earn “time credits” to reduce their total time in jail.
This proposition would ban involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. State prisons would not be allowed to punish inmates for refusing to work. However, the measure would not stop prisons from granting people time credits if they choose to work.
Prop. 32: Raising minimum wage to $18 an hour
The current minimum wage in California is $16 an hour. With Proposition 32, it would hike up to $18 an hour by 2026. In 2025, the minimum wage would stay at different levels depending on the size of the employer – $17 where there are 25 employees or less and $18 for any employer with 26 or more employees.
Prop. 33: Extending rent control
A vote in favor of this proposition would mean the state cannot limit the kinds of rent control that local governments enforce, such as putting a cap on how much a landlord increases rent.
A vote against this proposition is a vote to continue allowing the state to limit how local governments enforce rent control laws.
If it passes, rent control laws would likely expand in some communities, meaning some renters would spend less on rent if they are covered by rent control. Other renters would spend more on rent if they are not covered by rent control.
Prop. 34: Revenue from prescription drug program spent on patient care
There is a 30-year-old law that gives health care providers, which are public or private nonprofits who serve low-income patients, a discount on pharmaceutical drugs. They are exempt from paying tax on their revenue.
Prop 34 would establish rules to make sure that providers are spending 98% of their revenue on patient care and if not, enforce penalties.
This proposition is essentially singling out one group, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Prop. 35: Permanent tax on health care insurance plans
There is an existing tax on certain healthcare plans, such as Kaiser Permanente, based on the number of people they provide coverage to.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s office, this tax is expected to bring in $7 billion to $8 billion to the state each year. These excess funds are then used to pay for existing costs in Medi-Cal – the federal-state program that provides health coverage to people of low-income – and to increase its funding.
Since the tax is not permanently approved by California legislature, it will expire at the end of 2026. This proposition would make the tax permanent beginning in 2027.
Prop. 36: Increased sentences for drug and theft crimes
This proposition would reclassify some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies. This proposal is essentially an attempt to undo Proposition 47, which was approved 10 years ago, and made select theft and drug crimes misdemeanors to reduce prison overcrowding.
Now, this measure would create a new process for drug possession crimes, increase penalties for certain drug crimes and increase penalties for certain theft crimes.
