California Proposition 3, Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment (2024)

California Proposition 3
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Constitutional rights and Marriage and family
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 3, the Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to: repeal Proposition 8 (2008), which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and declare that a "right to marry is a fundamental right" in the California Constitution.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thus keeping Proposition 8 (2008), which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, in the California Constitution.

Election results

California Proposition 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		9,477,435	62.62%
No		5,658,187	37.38%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What changes did Proposition 3 make to the California Constitution?

See also: Text of measure

The amendment repealed Proposition 8 (2008), which had defined marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman, reversing a prior state judicial ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California. The amendment also added language to Section 7.5 of Article I of the state constitution, establishing a right to marry as an extension of the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, privacy, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the state constitution.

Proposition 8 was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, which protected same-sex marriage under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Had other states repealed a same-sex marriage ban from their constitution?

See also: Related measures

In 2024, voters in Colorado, California, and Hawaii also decided on constitutional amendments to remove same-sex marriage bans.

In 2020, Nevada became the first state to repeal its same-sex marriage ban from its constitution. Along with repealing the 2002 amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, the approved amendment recognized marriage as between couples regardless of gender and stated that religious organizations and clergypersons have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage. The state legislature referred the measure to the November 2020 ballot, where it was approved with 62.43% of the vote.

How did the amendment get on the ballot?

See also: Path to the ballot

Proposition 3 originated in the California State Legislature. It was approved 67-0, with 13 absent, in the state Assembly and 31-0, with nine absent, in the state Senate. Asm. Evan Low (D-26), who sponsored the amendment, said, "California leads the way in LGBTQ+ protections and cutting-edge pro-equality legislation and our constitution should reflect those values."

California Capitol Connection, an alliance of independent Baptist ministers and churches, came out in opposition to the amendment during the legislative process. The organization stated, "Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman from the beginning. God instituted it. ... The debate about marriage is not about love or hate. It is about truth. Man cannot redefine what God has already defined."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title is as follows:

“

Constitutional right to marriage. Legislative constitutional amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary is as follows:

“

Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact is as follows:

“

No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, California Constitution

The measure amended section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following underlined text was added, and struck-through text was deleted:

Text of Section 7.5:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

(a) The right to marry is a fundamental right. (b) This section is in furtherance of both of the following: (1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy guaranteed by Section 1. (2) The rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed by Section 7.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 23, and the FRE is -63. The word count for the ballot title is 7.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 20. The word count for the ballot summary is 30.

Support

Freedom to Marry led the campaign in support of Proposition 3.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• Stat Sen. Scott Wiener (D)
• Asm. Evan Low (D)
• State Asm. Tina McKinnor (D)

Political Parties

• California Democratic Party

Unions

• California Labor Federation

Organizations

• ACLU of Northern California
• ACLU of Southern California
• California Chamber of Commerce
• Equality California
• Human Rights Campaign
• League of Women Voters of California
• Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
• Trans Latina Coalition

Arguments

• Asm. Evan Low (D-26): "California is ready for love, and these protections will protect against any future attempts to restrict marriage rights for same-sex and interracial couples."
• Imani Rupert-Gordon, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights: "Proposition 8 has been a stain on our state’s Constitution for nearly 20 years. It is long past time that we correct this injustice and remove this shameful and outdated provision from our law."
• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): "Same sex marriage is the law of the land and Prop. 8 has no place in our constitution. It’s time that our laws affirm marriage equality regardless of who you are or who you love. California stands with the LGBTQ+ community and their right to live freely."

Opposition

Opponents

Organizations

• California Capitol Connection
• California Family Council
• Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee
• Freedom in Action
• Real Impact

Arguments

• California Capitol Connection, an alliance of independent Baptist ministers and churches: "Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman from the beginning. God instituted it. ... The debate about marriage is not about love or hate. It is about truth. Man cannot redefine what God has already defined."
• California Family Council President Jonathan Keller: "In a society like ours, you never can count on what people are willing to do for legal and financial and political reasons. And ACA 5, again, eliminates any of those safeguards, and it opens up Pandora's Box. You could have siblings getting married. You could have nephews and nieces marrying uncles and aunts. You could have, potentially even mothers and fathers marrying each other, or mothers and children, or fathers and children marrying each other."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2024.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified three committees registered in support of Proposition 3 and none opposed.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$3,582,692.10	$336,518.64	$3,919,210.74	$3,508,249.97	$3,844,768.61
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$3,582,692.10	$336,518.64	$3,919,210.74	$3,508,249.97	$3,844,768.61

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on Proposition 3, Sponsored by Equality California	$2,695,717.00	$336,018.64	$3,031,735.64	$2,657,584.41	$2,993,603.05
Kevin De Leon Believing in a Better California Ballot Measure Committee - Yes on Propositions 3, 32, and 33	$854,475.10	$0.00	$854,475.10	$828,483.04	$828,483.04
Assembly Member Liz Ortega California Freedom Ballot Measure Committee - Yes on Prop 2 and 3	$32,500.00	$500.00	$33,000.00	$22,182.52	$22,682.52
Total	$3,582,692.10	$336,518.64	$3,919,210.74	$3,508,249.97	$3,844,768.61

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Kevin de Leon for Lieutenant Governor 2026	$750,000.00	$0.00	$750,000.00
California Works: Senator Toni Atkins Ballot Measure Committee	$250,000.00	$55,512.50	$305,512.50
California Teachers Association	$200,000.00	$0.00	$200,000.00
California Federation of Teachers COPE	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00
California Nurses Association Political Action Committee	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

• The Mercury News/East Bay Times Editorial Boards: "Yes: Voters should protect same-sex marriage from U.S. Supreme Court assault by updating the state Constitution."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "California has changed since 2008 when it comes to attitudes about same-sex marriage, and that’s all to the good. Despite voting overwhelmingly for Barack Obama for president that year, the state’s electorate also passed Proposition 8, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Of course, those were different times. Even Obama said at the time that marriage was between a man and a woman. It didn’t take long for him and the California electorate to acknowledge that marriage is a right that is fundamental to all people."
• Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "We know that attitudes toward same-sex marriage in the Golden State have only improved in the 16 years since Prop 8 was narrowly approved by voters. Still, we can't take anything for granted. California voters must approve Prop 3 to protect all of our rights. Vote YES on Prop 3."

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls

See also: 2024 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 3, Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment (2024)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Public Policy Institute of California	10/07/2024 - 10/15/2024	1,137 LV	± 3.1%	67.0%	32.0%	2.0%
	Question: "Proposition 3 is called “Constitutional Right to Marriage.” Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The fiscal impact is no change in revenues or costs for state and local governments. Supporters include the Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California. Opponents include Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?"

Public Policy Institute of California	8/29/2024 - 09/11/2024	1,071 LV	± 3.7%	68.0%	31.0%	1.0%
	Question: "Proposition 3 is called “Constitutional Right to Marriage”. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The fiscal impact is no change in revenues or costs for state and local governments. Supporters include the Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California. Opponents include Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?"

University of Southern California Dornsife/Price Center for Urban Politics and Policy/CSU Long Beach/ Cal Poly Pomona	1/21/2023-1/29/2024	1,416 LV	± 2.6%	73%	20%	7%
	Question: "California voters in 2024 will vote on a change to the California constitution called the 'Marriage Equality amendment.' Currently, the California Constitution provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, and federal law permanently enjoins the state from enforcing this constitutional provision. This measure would repeal this unenforceable constitutional provision and would instead provide that the right to marry is a fundamental right between those of the same gender as well as between a man and a woman. Do you support or oppose the Marriage Equality amendment?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that same-sex marriage is protected under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, same-sex marriage bans have been struck down as unconstitutional and same-sex marriages performed out-of-state must be recognized in other states. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion and Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined.

California Proposition 8 (2008)

See also: California Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage Ban Initiative (2008)

Proposition 8 added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. As the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California on May 15, 2008, Proposition 8 had the effect of reversing the court's ruling and banning same-sex marriage. In 2009, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 "carved out a limited [or 'narrow'] exception to the state equal protection clause" and prohibited same-sex marriage under the California Constitution.

Same-sex marriage in California before Proposition 8

In 1977, the state adopted a statute that defined marriage as a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, an initiated state statute that said that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (D) performed same-sex marriages in San Francisco, which were annulled in court. The California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was legal under the California Constitution on May 15, 2008.

Related measures

See also: History of same-sex marriage ballot measures

Between 1998 and 2012, voters in 30 states approved ballot measures that defined marriage as between one male and one female or otherwise prohibited same-sex marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated bans on same-sex marriage in the case Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

• 1998: Alaska
• 2000: Nebraska
• 2002: Nevada
• 2004: Arkansas
• 2004: Georgia
• 2004: Kentucky
• 2004: Louisiana
• 2004: Michigan
• 2004: Mississippi
• 2004: Missouri
• 2004: Montana
• 2004: North Dakota
• 2004: Ohio
• 2004: Oklahoma
• 2004: Oregon
• 2004: Utah
• 2005: Kansas
• 2005: Texas
• 2006: Alabama
• 2006: Colorado
• 2006: Idaho
• 2006: South Carolina
• 2006: South Dakota
• 2006: Tennessee
• 2006: Virginia
• 2006: Wisconsin
• 2008: Arizona
• 2008: California
• 2008: Florida
• 2012: North Carolina

In 2020, Nevada became the first state to repeal its same-sex marriage ban from its constitution. Along with repealing the 2002 amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, the approved amendment recognized marriage as between couples regardless of gender and stated that religious organizations and clergypersons have the right to refuse to solemnize a marriage. The state legislature referred the measure to the November 2020 ballot, where it was approved with 62.43% of the vote.

Measures to repeal state constitutional same-sex marriage bans in 2024

The following table provides a list of measures to repeal same-sex marriage bans from states' constitutions in 2024:

State	Type	Title	Description	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
CA	LRCA	Proposition 3	Repeal Proposition 8 and establish a right to marry	a	9,477,435 (63%)	5,658,187 (37%)
CO	LRCA	Amendment J	Remove the provision of the state constitution that says "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state"	a	1,982,200 (64%)	1,099,228 (36%)
HI	LRCA	Remove Legislature Authority to Limit Marriage to Opposite-Sex Couples Amendment	Remove provision of the constitution saying that "the legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples"	a	268,038 (56%)	211,142 (44%)

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required during one legislative session for the California State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 54 votes in the California State Assembly and 27 votes in the California State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot. This amendment was introduced as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 on February 14, 2023. On June 26, 2023, the state Assembly passed ACA 5 in a vote of 67-0, with 13 absent. The amendment passed in the Senate by a vote of 31-0 with nine absent on July 13, 2023. On September 6, 2023, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 789 (SB 789) to move the amendment from the March 5 primary ballot to the November general election ballot.

Vote in the California House of Representatives June 26, 2023
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 54  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	67	0	13
Total percent	83.8%	0.00%	16.2%
Democrat	58	0	4
Republican	9	0	9

Vote in the California State Senate July 13, 2023
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	31	0	9
Total percent	77.5%	0.0%	22.5%
Democrat	30	0	2
Republican	1	0	7

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to vote in California

Poll times

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.

Automatic registration

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

California allows same-day voter registration.

Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.

”

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Constitutional rights on the ballot
• Marriage and family on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Full text