California voters have weighed 10 ballot propositions this year, and two of them were near deadlocks as multiple vote totals were released Thursday.

Both Proposition 32, which deals with the state’s minimum wage, and Proposition 34, which focuses on health care spending, had margins of less than 2 percent, with ballots still being counted in the state.

These margins were far different from the large advantages in favor of passage for Propositions 3, 35 and 36.

Here’s more on all 10 ballot proposals starting Thursday at 5 p.m.:

LIVE ELECTION RESULTS: See a graph with the latest vote counts

Prop. 2 (Financing of education)

Four years after rejecting a proposal to sell $15 billion in bonds to pay for new school buildings, California voters appear poised to break that cycle by passing Proposition 2, a $10 billion version of a similar to the school building, according to ballots counted Thursday. The yes votes represented 57.1%.

Supporters of Proposition 2 note that lower-income school districts in California rely heavily on bonds to pay for new construction and expand new services such as pre-kindergarten programs.

Opponents argue that Proposition 2 is discriminatory because lower-income districts would receive a larger share of the money.

Prop. 3 (Marriage Equality)

A proposal to amend the state constitution to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right already guaranteed by federal law, was ahead, according to published ballot counts: 61.3 percent to 38.7 percent.

The idea of ​​codifying the right to same-sex marriage has gained traction in California and other states following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which allows states to set their own rules on abortion. As part of that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the Supreme Court revisit the 2013 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and others echoed that sentiment.

In addition to enshrining marriage equality in California, Proposition 3 also repeals Proposition 8, a 2008 law that banned same-sex marriage. Although the federal law supersedes Proposition 8, the law has remained current.

Prop. 4 (Financing of environmental projects)

Voters are poised to accept a bid to add about $10 billion in bonds to pay for a variety of climate change projects. The yes votes represented 58.2%.

Among other things, Proposition 4 would set aside $3.8 billion in new bond revenue for water quality improvement and flood and drought mitigation projects, both of which are more pronounced as California’s ping-pong between wet and dry rainy seasons.

Supporters say the bonds are needed because the state recently hit about $10 billion in spending on environmental programs. Opponents note the bonds are expensive and would cost state taxpayers $400 million a year for 40 years.

Prop. 5 (Affordable housing)

Voters rejected an attempt to ease the passage of tax-related bonds, lowering the approval threshold from 66 percent to 55 percent, according to figures released Thursday. No vote accounted for 56.1%.

Supporters say giving a third of voters veto power over any tax increase is fundamentally undemocratic. While Proposition 5 would not completely end this imbalance, it would reduce it considerably.

Opponents of Proposition 5 say local taxes tend to fall disproportionately on property owners, so the tax burden itself is undemocratic. They also argue that the high threshold for approving a tax prevents what they see as bad spending decisions.

Prop. 6 (Involuntary Service)

It looks like California inmates will continue to work for little or no pay, as accounts released Thursday show voters opposed Proposition 6, an attempt to change the state constitution to ban involuntary servitude in state prisons. No on Proposition 6 led 54.6% to 45.4%

Proposition 6’s proposed rules would end the practice of punishing prisoners by forcing them to work as cooks, janitors, construction workers and firefighters, among others. Proposition 6 calls for allowing inmates to work such jobs as a way to earn furlough credit.

Advocates say forced labor in state prisons is a vestige of slavery and that the practice disproportionately affects people of color. Opponents argue that changing prison labor rules is a form of reparation that is not affordable at a time when the state is facing budget deficits.

Prop. 32 (Increase in the minimum wage)

It’s still unclear whether lower-wage workers in California will get a raise starting this month, as Thursday’s vote count still showed only a slight lead — 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent — for the would-be losers. Proposition 32.

California’s current minimum wage is $16 an hour, though a complex set of exemptions based on industry type and geography already mean slightly higher paydays for many workers.

Proposition 32, however, would extend the raises to about 2 million people who currently earn the state minimum. The new minimum would be $17 an hour in 2025 and $18 an hour in 2026.

Supporters say higher minimum wages reflect the realities of living in California. They also argue that many minimum wage workers are forced into state food and housing assistance programs, and that forcing employers to raise wages would benefit state taxpayers and local economies.

Opponents say higher minimum wages will mean fewer new jobs and possibly some layoffs. They note that the state delayed raising the minimum wage for state workers when budget shortfalls became apparent last year, and that private businesses should be allowed to follow the same rules.

Prop. 33 (Rent control)

An attempt to expand rent control in California, Proposition 33, appeared headed for overwhelming defeat. More than 61 percent of the votes cast opposed Thursday’s proposal.

Although many California cities have had rent control for decades, those rules were blunted by Costa-Hawkins, a law that limits rent control to homes and apartment buildings built before 1995 and allows landlords to raise rents when new tenants move out. Proposition 33 seeks to allow cities to set rent rules that work for the majority of their residents.

California has a much higher share of renters (44%) than the national average (about 35%), and supporters of Proposition 33 say most of those renters pay more than a third of their income to keep a roof over their heads.

Supporters of Proposition 33 say the rules would ease rent obligations for millions of Californians and help slow the state’s growing housing crisis.

Opponents say the law would have the opposite effect.

Prop. 34 (Health Care Expenses)

The latest vote tally on Thursday showed only a small advance for the passage of Proposition 34, a law that, if passed, could end up being challenged again in court. The yes votes represented 51.%.

At its core, Proposition 34 is a proposed amendment to the health care law. It would require a very specific subset of healthcare providers to set aside 98% of any rebate they receive for purchasing drugs specifically for use in patient care.

But the world of health care providers described in the measure is so narrow that many believe it applies to just one entity — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS health centers in California and 14 other states.

Opponents say the purpose of Proposition 34 is to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for advocating for lower rents and other concepts opposed by the real estate industry. Supporters say the purpose of the law is to instill accountability; federal drug price cuts should be used to help patients.

It is against federal and state law to make a proposal that targets any person or company.

Prop. 35 (Health Tax)

Voters apparently want California to spend about $35 billion in Medi-Cal taxes over the next four years on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians, rather than the general fund, according to Thursday’s results. The yes votes represented 66.9%.

That spending path is the core promise of Proposition 35, which seeks to change a longstanding practice in Sacramento of using Medi-Cal taxes to cover tax gaps in non-health areas.

Supporters of Proposition 35 argue the system needs a fiscal boost. Opponents say the measure is too restrictive on how money is spent in Sacramento.

Prop. 36 (Retail theft and drug offences)

A decade after the passage of Proposition 47, which aimed to reduce penalties and incarceration rates for drug crimes, California voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 36. Vote totals released Thursday showed a huge lead for the ballot measure’s passage, 70 .2% to 29.8%.

• See also: Voter-approved California Proposition 36 gives law enforcement teeth to rehab drug users and curbs theft, officials say

The new measure reclassifies some misdemeanors as felonies and creates a new category of misdemeanors — “treatment-enforced offenses” — that would give addicts convicted of certain crimes an option to complete rehab or spend up to three years in prison.

The vote reflects widespread frustration with pandemic-era spikes in retail theft, car break-ins and the apparent awareness among some criminals that stealing less than $1,000 worth of goods won’t land you in jail. One study found that shoplifting crimes involving property valued at $950 or less rose about 28 percent during a five-year window that ended last year.

Supporters of Proposition 36 link the law to homelessness, saying the increase in the number of people struggling to find housing involves people struggling with addiction as well.

Opponents say the law would once again fill jails and prisons that have become less crowded since Proposition 47 was passed, something that would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.