LW Summary of CA Ballot Propositions November 2026
I’m voting “yes” on all the single digit propositions and “no” on all the double digit propositions.
Some were close calls for me;
here’s a summary
Prop 1 (put on the ballot by the state legislature, nearly unanimous vote)
Authorizes $11.25 billion for housing (new affordable units targeted to low- and moderate-income CA residents). This is an effort to improve affordability of housing and to reduce the insufficient supply of housing.
· $5 billion for multi-family rental housing
· $2 billion for housing the homeless
· $1.25 billion for veteran’s housing
· $1 billion for home buyers
· $500 million for infrastructure
· $450 million for farmworkers
· $350 million for student housing
· $200 million for tribal housing
I’m voting for it because we badly need to increase the supply of affordable housing for low and moderate income Californians.
Prop 2 (put on the ballot by the state legislature, nearly unanimous vote)
This doubles the state’s Rainy Day fund from 10% to 20% of General Fund Revenues. The state is required to increase funds deposited into the Rainy Day fund through 2040. The purpose of the Rainy Day fund is to even out the wide variations in income tax revenues between good economic times and bad. Because the state is required to operate a balanced budget, the state would otherwise need to decimate health and education programs during economic downturns. California has about $20 billion in the Rainy Day Fund.
I’m voting for it because we need to even out the peaks and valleys of our state’s income tax receipts so we can save during boom times and help those who need assistance during the economic down cycles.
Prop 3 (put on the ballot by voter signatures)
This continues and makes permanent the higher income tax rates paid by the wealthiest Californians. This was passed in 2012 and extended in 2016. The top 2% of California taxpayers pay an additional 1-3% of state income taxes. (They pay about half of the state’s income taxes.) This raises between $5 and $15 billion of the state’s General Fund revenues depending on the state of the economy. All funds are dedicated to public education.
I’m voting for it for several reasons: 1) our incomes and wealth have become wildly unequal in this country due in part to federal and state tax breaks for the wealthy from the 70’s to the present, 2) Trump and the GOP cut federal funding for programs for the low and moderate income while giving large tax breaks to those with the highest incomes last year, 3) California would need to cut public education spending without these funds.
Prop 4 (put on the ballot by the state legislature)
This would allow state and local governments to provide public financing of political campaigns if they so choose. Candidates cannot spend the funds on legal defenses, fines, fees or to repay their own loans to the campaign. Candidates receiving the funds must have broad based support and agree to spending limits. Governments may not use funds designated for public safety, education, etc. to pay for political campaigns.
I’m voting yes because I’m in favor of encouraging and allowing public financing with strong campaign spending limits as opposed to the crazy levels of private fundraising to support political candidates who may behoove to their largest donors.
Prop 38 (put on the ballot by voter signatures)
An initiative to:
· authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research;
· require the state to enter a partnership with an immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California and allocate half of the bond revenue to that research institute; and
· use the remaining funds for grants to California-based public and nonprofit medical research institutions for immunology and immunotherapy research.
This initiative was developed and is being financed and promoted by wealthy donors and board members of the UCLA Center for Immunology and Immunotherapy to fund research at the Center they help lead.
https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2026/07/proposition-38-california/
I’m voting no because there is no compelling reason why this should not be proposed and considered by the Legislature with all the other worthy competing needs for state bond funding. The wealthy individuals supporting this measure are trying to buy very large state bond financing for the Center they lead.
Prop 39 (put on the ballot by voter signatures)
This would require voters to provide an identification card proving that they are US citizens when they vote either at their polling place or to provide their government issued ID number on their mail in ballots.
Voters are already required to affirm their citizenship when they register to vote in federal or state elections, and non-citizens can be criminally prosecuted if they do vote.
This is a highly controversial measure because President Trump is constantly and falsely claiming with that many non-citizens are voting in our nation’s elections. There is simply nothing to support his claims. See https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/myths-about-noncitizen-voting-heritage-foundation-data/
I’m voting no because it’s trying to fix a non-existent problem, and we should not reward Trump’s persistent lies on the subject.
Prop 40 (put on the ballot by voter signatures)
This would tax billionaires 5% of their wealth to pay primarily (90%) for health care and to a lesser extent for nutrition assistance like Food Stamps. Calculation of wealth includes stocks, businesses, investments and art collections, but not the individual’s home or pensions. This would be a one-time tax to make up for Trump’ cuts in health care coverage and financing for low-income Californians in order to pay for his tax cuts to the wealthy. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf
Its principal supporters are SEIU-United Health Care Workers. It would raise billions to offset the Trump health cuts.
In support of the initiative, the McClatchy Editorial Board (Sacramento Bee etc.) opined "This ballot initiative does not need to solve California’s healthcare crisis to be worthwhile. It simply needs to keep a federal retreat from becoming a California catastrophe. Billionaires can afford to contribute, and California cannot afford to wait."
The most telling and compelling critique of the initiative was from Governor Newsom. "We can’t let a single advocacy organization, however well-intentioned, write the state’s tax code on its own terms. We make those decisions together through the elected Legislature, through a budget, and through the public process that voters built precisely to prevent any single interest from prevailing with disregard for the rest. At the same time, the fight to make the wealthiest Americans pay more in taxes is not one we should be fighting state by state. You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do. Wealth is movable, and it shops for the state with the lowest taxes. The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place."
I’m voting no because it needs to be done nationally, or it will hurt California’s tax collection efforts if billionaires leave the state; Newsom is right about this. Also, it is going to be very difficult to administer. Imagine trying to value individually owned businesses not listed on the stock market and trying to find, track and value an individual’s private art and other valuable collections. And this would only be operational for only one year. It’s a good symbol, but not practicable.
Prop 41 (put on the ballot by voter signatures)
This would bar new taxes that exclude their revenues from the state spending limit (the Gann limit) and require pre-election audits of all programs to receive revenues from new special taxes. Invalidates Prop 40 if Prop 41 gets more votes.
This is the billionaire counterattack to Prop 40, primarily funded by Sergei Brin and John Doerr of the Silicon Valley tech world.
The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board says “You don’t have to support the billionaire tax to see Prop 41 is a poison pill more interested in serving special interests than protecting taxpayers. Vote no."
I’m voting no because 1) programs are already audited, and 2) the Gann limit is an outdated and misguided relic from the Jarvis-Gann era of the 1970’s that ought to be repealed rather than expanded because it impairs the state’s ability to move forward over half a century later. See https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/qa-why-hitting-gann-limit-threatens-ongoing-investments-in-californians/
Prop 42 (put on the ballot by voter signatures)
Prohibits California from taxing any forms of personal property not already being taxed. For example, your motor vehicle is taxed to pay for the roads, but your stock holdings and all other personal investments are not. Prohibits retroactive taxes, like Prop 40 which proposed to tax billionaire investments which they held as of 1/1/26
This is the second part of the billionaire counterattack to Prop 40, primarily funded by Sergei Brin and John Doerr of the Silicon Valley tech world.
The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board says: "There is little merit in adding yet another ballot-box budgeting rule to California’s already head-spinning list of restrictions. Lawmakers have already killed all six wealth tax proposals introduced since 2019; none made it out of their house of origin, and some didn’t even get a hearing. Meanwhile, Prop 42’s ban on retroactive state taxes — which includes an exemption for natural and fiscal emergencies — is also unnecessary and could create legal complications. ... Prop 42 papers over its real purpose by cynically appealing to middle-class worries about retirement security. Reject this appalling tactic and disincentivize its further use by voting no."
I’m voting no, because there is no good reason to tie the hands of future legislatures facing a financial crisis where some form of a wealth tax may be the least bad alternative. It may be viable with a lot more creativity, practicality and political consensus building than Prop 40.
Prop 43 (put on the ballot by the state legislature)
This is an initiative put on the ballot by the legislature as part of a compromise with the Howard Jarvis Assn. to impose a 2/3rds vote requirement on citizen initiatives to increase local special taxes (i.e. dedicated to ambulance service, firefighting or schools). Basically, local governments must have 2/3rds vote majorities for an initiative to local voters to increase local special taxes, but local voters using the initiative process for a special tax only need a majority vote from the electorate.
Evolve California put their opposition succinctly: "This measure would require 2/3 voter approval to raise any new local revenue. If this measure passes, it will make California the hardest place in the country to raise local revenue."
I’m voting no because I don’t like super-majority rules required to raise necessary revenues to operate local government, and would rather reduce than expand them.
Prop 44 (put on by voter signatures)
Penalizes federally qualified community health clinics and look alike clinics that fail to spend 90% of revenues on patient services. Currently they average 80%; the remainder is administration and fund raising. Their mission is primary care to low-income Californians, the MediCal and uninsured patients.
The sponsor is SEIU-United Health Care Workers West. This is a union organizing effort, and they have picked the most inappropriate target possible at a time when the Trump Administration is trying to cut millions of Americans off MediCal and the ACA’s Exchanges, such as Covered California.
I’m voting no because community clinics are the backbone of delivering primary care to California’s low- and moderate-income patients. This is just a poorly conceived and ill timed SEIU organizing tactic for clinic workers.
Prop 45 (put on by voter signatures)
This is a developer sponsored initiative to fix CEQA (California’s environmental review process). It is also supported by the Hospital Association and Clinic Association. It is funded by many of the same tech billionaires as Prop 41 and 42.
It is opposed by the major environmental groups. They are joined by many union groups, including the Teamsters, Teachers, Firefighters, and most surprisingly the Building and Construction Trades.
What does it actually do? It shortens “the review process for a defined set of essential projects — housing, water systems (excluding Delta conveyance), clean energy, medical facilities, public safety infrastructure (excluding jails/prisons), broadband, education, and transportation (excluding high-speed rail)”.
The Initiative would:
· “establish deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions for projects deemed essential under the law;
· limit public agencies' existing requirement to consider a range of project alternatives to reduce environmental impacts; and
· change the court review process for project approvals by setting deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits and limiting the evidence and relief the court can consider and order.”
The legislature recently adopted CEQA reforms in AB 130 and SB 131, as they relate to housing.
Some of the CEQA reforms proposed in this initiative seem to make sense; others don’t, but the legislature and the legislative process (rather than the ballot initiative) is the right place to resolve these issues (after all, they are supported by very powerful and highly influential interests).
I’m voting no because this should be resolved in the state Legislature rather than through the initiative process. There is no question that CEQA has at times been used/abused to stop much needed housing projects, and it needs to be reformed. The state’s Legislature has been doing so, and the very powerful voices supporting this initiative already have great sway in the Capitol.