In addition to the Presidential Election, many other offices and ballot measures will be decided in the November 2024 Election.
Fullerton is split into different districts for Congress, the California State Senate, the California Assembly, and the local elections. Not all races will appear on your ballot, so check your sample ballot to see which districts you live in.
UNITED STATES SENATE
• Adam Schiff, Democrat
• Steve Garvey, Republican
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESS
Congressional District 45
- Michelle Steel, Republican
- Derek Tran, Democrat
Congressional – 46
- Lou Correa, Democrat
- David Pan, Republican
CALIFORNIA JUDICIAL ELECTIONS
• California Supreme Court and District Court Justices will be listed on the ballot for retention elections with a 12-year term of office.
CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE SEAT 37
- Josh Newman, Democrat
- Steve Choi, Republican
CA Assembly District 59
• Phil Chen, Republican
• Dave Obrand, Democrat
CA Assembly District 67
- Sharon Quirk-Silva, Democrat
- Elizabeth Culver, Republican
North Orange County Community College District
District 4
• Evangelina Rosales won another 4- year term without a challenger, so this seat will not appear on the ballot.
District 7
- Ryan Bent
- Kyle Miller
Fullerton Joint Union School District
• Joanne Fawley and Vicki Calhoun won another 4-year term without a challenger, so neither seat will appear on the ballot.
Fullerton School District


Trustee Area 2
• James Cho
• Hilda Sugarman, incumbent


Trustee Area 5
• Vanesa Estrella
• Leonel Talavera, incumbent
Fullerton City Council


District 1
- Fred Jung, incumbent
- Matt Truxaw

District 2
- Nick Dunlap, incumbent
- Jan Flory, past Mayor




District 4
- Kitty Jaramillo
- Scott Markowitz
- Linda Whitaker
- Jamie Valencia
California Propositions
Proposition 2: Borrow $10 billion for schools
$8.5 billion to K-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges for construction and modernization. The money would be distributed through matching grants, with the state paying a greater share of costs for less affluent districts and those with higher numbers of English learners and foster youth. Some of the money would be set aside to remove lead from water, create traditional kindergarten classrooms, and build career and technical education facilities.
Proposition 3: Reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry
This constitutional amendment from the Legislature would remove outdated language from Proposition 8, passed by voters in 2008, that characterizes marriage as being between a man and a woman. While still on the books, that language is effectively void after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 allowed same-sex marriage to resume in California, and the high court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in a historic 2015 decision.
Proposition 4: Borrow $10 billion for climate programs
This is a bond measure that includes about $3.8 billion to be spent on water projects — half to improve water quality, the remainder to protect the state from floods and droughts, and other activities, including restoring rivers and lakes. The rest of the money would be spent on wildfire and extreme heat projects, $1.95 billion; natural lands, parks, and wildlife projects, $1.9 billion; coastal lands, bays, and ocean protection, $1.2 billion; clean energy projects, $850 million; agricultural projects, $300 million.
Proposition 5: Lower voter approval requirements for local housing and infrastructure bonds
This measure amends the California constitution by lowering the required threshold to 55% for any borrowing to fund affordable housing construction, down payment assistance programs, and a host of “public infrastructure” projects, including those for water management, local hospitals and police stations, broadband networks, and parks. It also now includes a ban on local governments using the money from bonds to buy existing single-family homes and convert them into affordable units.
Proposition 6: Limit forced labor in state prisons
This proposition would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments and from disciplining those who refuse to work. Instead, state prisons could set up a volunteer work assignment program to take time off sentences in the form of credits. It would let county or city ordinances set up a pay scale for inmates in local jails. The measure’s potential costs remain unknown and are a point of contention. If approved, the state may have to pay the minimum wage to inmates with work assignments depending on how courts interpret the law and future voluntary work programs.
Proposition 32: Raise the state minimum wage to $18 an hour
This proposition would raise the minimum wage to $17 for the remainder of 2024 and $18 an hour starting in January 2025 — a bump from the current $16. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be required to start paying at least $17 next year and $18 in 2026. Nearly 40 California cities have local minimum wages that are higher than the state’s, including six that already require at least $18, and several already are just a small inflationary adjustment away from it.
Proposition 33: Allow local governments to impose rent controls
Many cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, limit the amount a landlord can raise the rent each year — a policy known as rent control. However, for nearly 30 years, California has imposed limits on those limits via a law known as Costa-Hawkins. Cities cannot set rent control on single-family homes or apartments built after 1995. And landlords are free to set their own rental rates when new tenants move in. If Proposition 33 passes, that would change. Cities would be allowed to control rents on any type of housing – including single-family homes and new apartments, as well as for new tenants.
Proposition 34: Require certain health providers to use nearly all revenue from a federal prescription drug program on patient care
Since 1992, federal law has given healthcare providers a deal: Serve low-income and at-risk patients and get a discount on pharmaceuticals. Providers that use this program can then sell those drugs at retail rates, using their profits to expand their healthcare services to disadvantaged groups.
This would require some California providers to spend at least 98% of that net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” Providers that don’t risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.
But the proposition doesn’t apply to all providers—only those that spend at least $100 million on expenses other than direct care, own and operate apartment buildings, and have racked up at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade.
As far as anyone can tell, that only applies to one organization: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which backed Proposition 33 is opposed by the California Apartment Association, the state’s premier landlord lobby and a major opponent of rent control. The California Apartment Association is the primary contributor to the campaign for Proposition 34.
Proposition 35: Make permanent a tax on managed healthcare insurance plans
This would require the state to spend money from taxes on health care plans in Medi-Cal and the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities. The revenue would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health, and prescription drugs. It would also prevent legislators from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upwards of $35 billion.
Lawmakers have dramatically expanded Medi-Cal in the past 10 years to include all low-income residents regardless of citizenship. Benefits have also been restored from Great Recession-era cuts to include dental insurance, hearing aids, and doulas. Today, more than 14 million Californians — roughly a third of the state population — use Medi-Cal. Over the same time period, payments to doctors and other Medi-Cal providers have increased only incrementally if at all. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, California’s reimbursement rate falls in the bottom third nationally. As a result, many providers won’t treat Medi-Cal patients at current rates.
Proposition 36: Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking
This initiative would partly roll back Proposition 47, approved by voters in 2014, that turned some felonies into misdemeanors. The initiative would increase penalties for certain drug crimes by increasing sentence lengths and level of crime. The initiative would also add fentanyl to the list of drugs (cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine) that would warrant a felony charge if an individual possesses one of the listed drugs and a loaded firearm. It would also require individuals who receive increased sentences because of this to serve their entire sentence in state prison regardless of their criminal history. For crimes where money or property worth $950 or less is stolen, the initiative would make the crime punishable as a felony for individuals who have two or more prior theft-related convictions. The initiative would make the punishment up to three years in jail or prison, depending on their criminal history. Currently, it is punishable by up to six months in jail. The initiative would also increase sentences based on the amount of property stolen.
LOCAL SCHOOL BONDS AND SALES TAX MEASURES
Thousands of California school buildings are in poor shape, with leaky roofs, broken air conditioning, peeling paint, and other health and safety hazards. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 38% of students attend schools that don’t meet the state’s minimum safety standards. Research has shown that students who attend school in substandard facilities tend to have lower attendance rates, lower morale, and lower achievement.
Unlike many other states, California does not pay for school repairs through a permanent funding stream. Money comes entirely from state and local bonds. These measures need at least 55% of the vote to pass. The estimate is based on the assessed value of the property, not the current market value.
L – Fullerton Joint Union High School District Bond Measure
This measure would authorize the District to issue and sell up to $284,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The District’s stated best estimate in its tax rate statement of the average annual tax rate required to fund the bonds is $21 per $100,000 of assessed value. The final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is fiscal year 2054-55.
M – Buena Park School District, School Safety, Renovation and Construction Measure
This measure would authorize the District to issue and sell up to $84,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The District’s stated best estimate in its tax rate statement of the average annual tax rate required to fund the bonds is $30 per $100,000 of assessed value. The final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is fiscal year 2054-55.
N – Fullerton School District Bond Measure
This measure would authorize the District to issue and sell up to $262,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The District’s stated best estimate in its tax rate statement of the average annual tax rate required to fund the bonds is $30 per $100,000 of assessed value. The final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is fiscal year 2069-60.
O – La Habra City School District Bond Measure
This measure would authorize the District to issue and sell up to $73,000,000 in general obligation bonds. The District’s stated best estimate in its tax rate statement of the average annual tax rate required to fund the bonds is $25 per $100,000 of assessed value. The final fiscal year in which the tax is anticipated to be collected is fiscal year 2069-60.
R – City of Buena Park, City of Buena Park Public Safety/Essential Services Measure
Measure R proposes a one percent (1%) increase in the local transactions and use tax (local sales tax) from 7.75% to 8.75%. If enacted, Measure R would generate approximately $20 million each year in local revenue that is critical to funding general municipal services, including resident-identified priorities such as addressing the staffing shortage facing the Buena Park Police Department, recruiting and retaining experienced officers, addressing homelessness, preventing property crimes like burglary, robbery and car theft, protecting drinking water sources, keeping public areas safe and clean, and maintaining 911 emergency response.
Municipal Election Information (buenapark.com)
V – City of La Habra, La Habra Emergency Services/neighborhood Safety/Community Protection Measure
Measure V proposes a half-cent increase in the local sales tax from 8.25% to 8.75% in La Habra. If enacted, Measure V would generate approximately $15.6 million each year in local revenue to help prevent additional cuts to firefighter/paramedic 911 response services; police staffing/ambulance services; maintain street repairs; protect groundwater supplies, parks/open space; address homelessness; remove hazardous waste; gang prevention; and general City services.
Summaries sourced from CalMatters.org
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Election, Elections, Local Government, Local News














professor, please report on the Yorba Linda elections. Patti Higgins