To help you make decisions about the 14 statewide propositions on California\u2019s ballot, our opinion team made recommendations like it does for every election. The process is completely separate from newsroom reporting and journalists.<\/p>\n
But the team considers arguments from across the political spectrum while developing its editorial stance. We understand that not everyone will agree with these endorsements \u2013 that\u2019s the nature of politics.<\/p>\n
If you\u2019d rather read impartial articles from our reporters, they covered all 14 propositions in this guide: All 14 propositions before California voters this year, explained<\/a><\/p>\n We hope it helps you clarify your own reason for choosing how to vote.<\/p>\n Tax-related\ud83d\udcb2<\/p>\n \u274c No on Prop 2, California\u2019s rainy day fund: <\/a>Prop. 2 would double the state budget reserve cap from 10% of General Fund revenues to 20% of General Fund revenues. The General Fund is the state\u2019s main spending account. Government & Election Reform \ud83c\udfdb\ufe0f<\/p>\n \u274c No on Prop 4, Expansion of public campaign financing programs: <\/a>Prop 4 would lift a ban that keeps counties, districts, most cities and the state from giving candidates public funds to run for election if they agree to certain terms. Cities won\u2019t automatically offer the program, but they would have that option. Housing & Social Infrastructure \ud83c\udfe1<\/p>\n \u274c No on Prop 1, Veterans and affordable housing bonds: <\/a>This measure would allow the state to issue $11.25 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing efforts.
\n\u274c No on Prop 3, Income tax rates: <\/a>Prop 3 would extend the state\u2019s highest income tax rates, which are now up to 12% for single filers who earn more than $360,000 per year and other high income groups, past 2031.
\n\u274c No on Prop 40, One-time tax on billionaires: <\/a>This measure, known as the \u201cBillionaire Tax Act,\u201d would enact a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires to raise temporary revenue to address the loss of federal funding to health, nutrition, and education services, largely a result of the 2025 budget reconciliation law known as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill.\u201d
\n\u2705 Yes on Prop 41, Audits and limitations on special taxes: <\/a>Prop. 41 would require one-time audits of programs that any proposed special taxes would fund. It would also require new special-tax revenues to count toward the Gann Limit \u2014 the 1979 constitutional amendment that caps the revenue the state can spend each year, therefore blocking Prop 40, the \u201cBillionaire Tax.\u201d
\n\u2705 Yes on Prop 42, Ban on new personal property taxes: <\/a>Prop 42 is another attempt to block Prop 40, this time by prohibiting new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property. California doesn\u2019t currently tax financial assets, and only taxes personal property in a limited way (e.g., vehicle license fees).<\/p>\n
\n\u274c No on Prop 5, Changes to recall elections of state officials: <\/a>This measure would make state recall elections just a yes or no question and remove the \u201cWho should replace them?\u201d query. If the governor was recalled, the lieutenant governor would fill the role, and for other state offices, vacancies would be filled according to state law.
\n\u2705 Yes on Prop 39, Voter ID for future elections: <\/a>Prop 39 would change the current protocol by requiring all voters to show ID when voting in person or provide the last four digits of their ID number when voting by mail. Election officials would also be required to report the percentage of county voters whose citizenship has been verified.
\n\u2705 Yes on Prop 43, New threshold for passing local taxes: <\/a>Right now, it takes 50% of voters to approve a local tax that appears on a ballot through the signature-gathering process. If Prop. 43 passed, it would raise that threshold to 75% for a new tax, a tax increase or an extension to be implemented.<\/p>\n
\n\u274c No on Prop 37, Home loans to middle-income earners: <\/a>Prop 37 would let the state issue $25 billion in bonds to help middle-income homebuyers afford homes.
\n\u274c No on Prop 38, Immunology and immunotherapy research: <\/a>Prop 38 would approve $8.4 billion in bonds toward California nonprofit universities\u2019 medical research into treatments that use the body\u2019s own immune system to treat disease.
\n\u274c No on Prop 44, Community clinic spending: <\/a>Prop 44 would make it so safety-net health clinics must spend 90% of their revenue on providing services to underserved people, rather than on management.
\n\u2705 Yes on Prop 45, Changes to CEQA<\/a> (California Environmental Quality Act): Prop 45 would speed up California\u2019s environmental impact review process for certain projects like housing, transportation and infrastructure by limiting its scope and setting review deadlines for public agencies.<\/p>\n