By The Signal Editorial Board While the race for the White House is the headline act on the Nov. 5 ballot, there are of course numerous other choices voters will make that will have profound impacts on citizens’ daily lives, the economy and more. Among them, we offer the following endorsements for state propositions, county measures and  county judge offices as you cast your ballot in the 2024 General Election.  State measure summaries are drawn from the nonprofit news organization, CalMatters, and county measure summaries are derived from the L.A. County sample ballot. State Measures Proposition 2: Yes Proposition 2 would provide $8.5 billion to K-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges to renovate, fix and construct facilities.  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 for removing lead from water, creating transitional kindergarten classrooms and building career and technical education facilities. Proposition 4: No Approving Proposition 4 would authorize $10 billion in debt to spend on environmental and climate projects, with the biggest chunk, $1.9 billion, for drinking water improvements. The bond prioritizes lower-income communities, and those most vulnerable to climate change, and requires annual audits. Repaying the money could cost $400 million a year over 40 years, a legislative analysis said, meaning taxpayers could spend $16 billion. Proposition 5: No  Most city and county bonds require the support of at least two-thirds of those voting to pass.  Proposition 5 would amend 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.  If it passes, the new cut-off would apply not just to future bonds, but any that are on the ballot this November. Proposition 32: No  Proposition 32 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. If voters say “yes,” California will have the nation’s highest state minimum wage. Starting in 2027, the wage would be adjusted based on inflation, as the state already does.  The hike would apply statewide, but it would have a bigger effect in some areas than in others.  Nearly 40 California cities have local minimum wages 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: No 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. But 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, and for new tenants. Proposition 34: Yes Since 1992, federal law has given health care providers a deal: Serve low-income and at-risk patients and get a discount on pharmaceuticals. Providers that make use of this program can turn around and sell those drugs at retail rates.   Proposition 34 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. The measure would also put into law a Newsom administration policy that requires all state agencies to negotiate for lower drug prices as a single entity. Proposition 35: Yes Proposition 35 would require the state to spend the money from a tax on health care plans on Medi-Cal, 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. Proposition 36: Yes Proposition 36 would reclassify some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies. The measure would also create a new category of crime — a “treatment-mandated felony.” People who don’t contest the charges could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison, but if they don’t finish treatment, they still face up to three years in prison. L.A. County Measures Measure G: No Measure G would create an elected county executive; create an independent ethics commission to increase restrictions on lobbying and investigate misconduct; establish a nonpartisan legislative analyst to review proposed county policies; increase the Board of Supervisors from five to nine elected members; require county departments to present annual budgets in public meetings.  ​​Opponents include the L.A. County Firefighters & Sheriffs, and L.A. County Supervisors Kathryn Barger and Holly J. Mitchell. Measure A: No ​Measure A would repeal the Measure H tax and replace it with a half-cent sales tax, raising approximately $1 billion annually until voters decide to end it.  Opponents include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and former county Supervisor Mike Antonovich. Measure E: Yes Measure E seeks to generate resources to improve firefighter and paramedic response to emergencies by levying 6 cents per square foot of certain parcel improvements, providing $152 million annually, limited to 2% annual adjustment, until ended by voters, exempting low-income seniors, with independent citizens oversight. ​ L.A. CountySuperior Court Judges • Office No. 39: Steve Napolitano • Office No. 48: Renee Rose • Office No. 97: Sharon Ranssom • Office No. 135: Steven Yee Mac • Office No. 137: Tracy Blount  The post Our View | About Those Ballot Props and Judges … appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.