As Americans cast their ballots in the 2024 election, the nation’s eyes were on the battle for the White House. California voters also decided critical issues on the ballot, with policy redefining measures in areas such as housing, marriage and criminal justice.

Although there are still ballots to be counted, the results in most major races are largely determined. Here’s a look at some of the results most relevant to the Sacramento State community.

What initially appeared to be a close contest between Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump ended decisively, with Trump securing the states he needed to return to the White House. For the first time in his three presidential campaigns, he also won the popular vote by a margin of more than 3 million votes.

Trump managed to win by 270 electoral votes before all the states finished counting. Wins in key battleground states, including Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan, solidified the landslide over Harris.

Democrat Adam Schiff defeated Republican Steve Garvey by a wide margin in the 2024 California Senate race. Democratic incumbents Ami Bera and Doris Matsui each retained their US House seats for the 6th and 7th districts, respectively, in Sacramento. Kevin McCarty, meanwhile, won the Sacramento mayoral race over political outsider Dr. Flojaune Cofer.

Approved by a significant margin, Proposition 2 will allow California to borrow $10 billion in bonds to support new buildings and renovations for career technical education centers, community colleges and K-12 public schools. The proposal covers statewide education infrastructure upgrades with an estimated total repayment cost of $18 billion after accrued interest.

Opponents cited the measure’s long-term financial impact, calling the bond a government credit card that taxpayers would be responsible for paying.

Passed by a wide margin, Proposition 3 amends the California State Constitution to recognize marriage as a fundamental right for all. The proposal brings the state constitution into line with current marriage equality law by removing outdated language from the overturned language. Proposition 8which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Opponents of Prop 3 have warned that it could have unintended consequences. Supporters said it was a step forward for future civil rights protections.

RELATED: California will decide on marriage equality with a vote on Proposition 3

Approval of Proposition 4 sets aside $10 billion in bonds for climate-related projects. The funds will support safe drinking water projects, forest fire prevention and protection of communities and natural lands from climate-related risks.

Supporters say the measure will meet vital environmental requirements. Critics cited the cost of financing the bonds to taxpayers and argued that the existing state budget should be used to cover the costs, instead of additional debt.

Proposition 5which failed to pass, would have allowed local governments to approve bonds for public infrastructure and affordable housing projects with a 55 percent majority vote instead of the two-thirds currently required.

Supporters said it would have given local communities more control over housing and safety. Critics said the bill would raise property taxes and debt, putting a greater burden on renters and homeowners.

Proposition 6 aimed to change the California constitution to ban slavery of any form in the state, specifically eliminating involuntary servitude as a punishment for murder.

Proponents argued that, in line with more general attempts to change the 13th Amendment, ending forced labor for prisoners constituted a fundamental human right. Although the bill had broad support and no formal statement of opposition was put to the vote, they did not have the votes to pass.

Involuntary servitude will remain a disciplinary tool in California prisons.

The failure of Proposition 32 means California’s minimum wage will remain at current levels instead of increasing to $18 an hour by 2025 for large employers and by 2026 for smaller employers.

Supporters argued it would have helped workers keep up with the cost of living, especially in high-cost areas. Opponents said the wage hike could have led to higher living costs, job losses and would have disproportionately affected small businesses.

Proposition 33 intended to increase the power of local governments to implement rent control policies on residential properties by overturning the regime Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.

Advocates argued that localized rent control measures would ease the burden on tenants facing high rental costs and help stabilize neighborhoods. Critics argued that the proposal could have led to a decline in housing development, discouraged investment in new residential projects and adversely affected property tax revenue.

Prop 33 follows multiple previous measures regarding rent control that has not passed; its failure means that current state rent policies will continue.

The passage of Proposition 34 means healthcare providers who meet certain criteria must direct 98% of their program revenue to direct patient care. It also allows drug price negotiations for Medi-Cal to be handled at the state level.

Supporters say it will improve services for patients and close loopholes exploited by healthcare providers. Critics say it’s a retaliation initiative by the California Apartment Association targeting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for supporting rent control efforts. The proposal is anticipated to meet legal obstacles.

Proposition 35 would permanently tax managed health insurance plans to pay for Medi-Cal services and prevent the state from using the funds for other services.

Supporters say Prop 35 will guarantee constant financial support for primary care, mental health and emergency services across California without additional taxes.

Approved by a significant margin, Proposition 36 allows felony charges to be filed against individuals for certain drug and theft offenses as well as repeat offenses.

Targeting organized retail theft and drug-related crimes, supporters of Prop. 36 say it will improve public safety while supporting addiction treatment. Critics say it brings back punitive “war on drugs” policies that will increase prison spending and take funds away from rehabilitation and prevention initiatives.