All of the ballot measures originating in citizen petitions are on the general election ballot now so we have just a couple of measures on the primary ballot, both of them originating in the legislature by unanimous votes of both houses. I'm relying heavily on and quoting Ballotpedia in summarizing these. KQED has an exceptionally clear guide as well.
Proposition 41
</p>
The California Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act shifts $600 million in bond issuing authority from the CalVet home loan assistance program, reapproved in 2008, to a new program aiming to provide multifamily housing to low-income or homeless veterans by offering financial assistance to developers and non-profits.
It was voted onto the ballot unanimously in the legislature and there's a lot of "pro" editorials. I'm not positive I want to give more money to developers or that homeless vets are strictly worthier than other homeless people but it's funding to fight homelessness and that seems, I guess, good! Repaying $50 million annually in a $100 billion budget seems tractable.
Proposition 42
</p>
Local governing bodies, including counties, municipalities, water districts, and the like, are already bound to make certain public records available to constituents by the California Public Records Act and the Ralph M. Brown Act, at their own expense. But when the legislature amended the Act with additional requirements (more rapid response, releasing documents electronically, etc.), these were determined to be new mandates on the local governments, for which the state is obligated to pay. In practice, the state has not yet actually reimbursed any localities for their expenses.
In response to recent budget crises, the legislature entertained permitting localities to suspend public records compliance so that the state would not be obligated to pay for records processing. They, fairly, caught some blowback for that, and dropped the idea.
Prop 42 makes public records availability a constitutional, and not merely legislative, obligation, so that it cannot be suspended so easily, and obliges local governments to pay their own expenses under the current Acts and any future amended versions, so imposing new mandates under the public records acts will cost municipalities but not the state.
Everybody supports this. I'll support this.