Proposition 1<\/p>\n
The basics<\/p>\n
Proposition 1 asks voters to let the state borrow $11.25 billion through the sale of bonds to build and maintain housing that low- and middle-income residents can afford. It\u2019s called the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.<\/p>\n
The impact<\/p>\n
The largest chunk of this money \u2014 $7.2 billion \u2014 would be doled out as loans to builders who agree to rent some of the homes to low-income families; in Los Angeles County, a family of four earning about $133,000 a year qualifies as low-income. Researchers recently found<\/a> that the construction of nearly 40,000 low-income homes was in limbo because of a lack of funding.<\/p>\n The second-largest portion of these funds \u2014 $1.25 billion \u2014 would be set aside for housing for veterans, in the form of homeownership loans. Voters last approved this type of statewide bond for veteran home loans in 2018.<\/p>\n Dig deeper <\/p>\n Proposition 1 is supported by Democrats and organizations that provide low-income housing, plus various municipal governments. They say it is key to helping more Californians achieve homeownership. Republicans oppose it, saying the state should curtail building regulations to bring down the cost of housing without burdening taxpayers.<\/p>\n Proposition 2<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Proposition 2 would give government the ability to put more money into savings and create another option for leaders to avoid triggering taxpayer rebates during future budget surpluses.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n The measure exempts deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters previously adopted through a series of ballot measures dating to the late 1970s, and increases the share of general fund tax revenue that can be put aside in reserves.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n Democrats say the changes will allow the state to save more when the economy is growing and use the funds to lessen cuts to vital programs during bad times. Republicans say it will allow the state to spend more money that otherwise would go back to taxpayers.<\/p>\n Proposition 3<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n There has been much debate about efforts in California to tax the rich. But almost all of it centers around Proposition 40,<\/a> the heavily contested billionaire tax, and two countermeasures, Propositions 41<\/a> and 42.<\/a><\/p>\n But Proposition 3<\/a> \u2014 getting far less attention \u2014 also would tax California\u2019s wealthiest citizens and has even garnered support from some billionaires who oppose Proposition 40. The proposition would make permanent an expiring state income tax on high earners.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n Tax rates for the top 2% of earners would remain as they are. Income brackets rise with inflation, but last year the top 2% of taxpayers earned at least $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for joint filers. Money generated by Proposition 3, like the current tax, would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n In 2012, California voters approved a temporary increase in the income tax rate for the top 2% of California earners. In 2016, voters approved another extension through 2030. Proposition 3 would make the additional levy permanent.<\/p>\n Backers say the measure is crucial to maintain education funding levels and predict there would be grave problems if the measure is not approved.<\/p>\n The state could expect to lose from $5 billion to $15 billion annually in tax revenue starting in 2031, according to estimates from the Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n Opponents say taxes are already too high and the state should focus on cutting waste.<\/p>\n More reading<\/p>\n How Prop. 3 fared in Berkeley poll<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n Prop. 3 ballot language<\/a> (California secretary of state)<\/p>\n Inside the Prop. 3 campaign<\/a> (EdSource)<\/p>\n Proposition 4<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Proposition 4 would repeal a 1988 ban on the public funding of campaigns and allow all local and state governments to offer public financing programs with certain conditions.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n Candidates would have to abide by certain expenditure limits and follow strict criteria. Funds could not be used for legal or defense purposes or to repay personal loans, nor could they be pulled from education, transportation or public safety buckets. The ballot measure also prohibits discrimination based on party or whether a candidate is an incumbent or running in opposition.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n Democrats and many good government groups support it. The California Taxpayers Assn. and Reform California oppose it.<\/p>\n Proposition 5<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Two California governors faced recall in the last 30 years. In 2021, Gavin Newsom survived an effort to recall him amid the COVID-19 pandemic<\/a>. But in 2003, Gray Davis was ousted from office<\/a> and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now, voters will consider significant changes to recall rules for state elected officials.<\/p>\n Under current law, when an elected official is recalled in California, the election for their replacement occurs at the same time. Proposition 5 breaks up that process into two parts, prioritizing the voters\u2019 right to oust an official before selecting a replacement.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n This ballot measure would amend the state constitution to change the current recall system. Under the proposed changes, voters would first be asked to choose whether or not to oust an official. Then, in the event of a recall, the official would be replaced by appointment, succession or special election at a later date. In the case of a special election, the former officeholder could run again.<\/p>\n The measure also would designate California\u2019s lieutenant governor as the de facto replacement for a recalled governor until the next term.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n California\u2019s rules for recalling politicians date to the Progressive era<\/a> and were seen at the time as a way to give more power to voters.<\/p>\n But there have been concerns in recent years that the process needs reform, especially after the 2021 recall that Newsom overwhelmingly beat back; it cost local and state governments more than $200 million.<\/p>\n After the Newsom recall failed, the Legislature began a bipartisan task force to suggest changes.<\/p>\n More reading<\/p>\n California\u2019s costly, confusing recall sparks an effort to rethink the rules<\/a> (L.A. Times, 2021)<\/p>\n The history of recalls in California<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n The Little Hoover Commission on recall reform<\/a> (State of California)<\/p>\n Proposition 37<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n California\u2019s Proposition 37<\/a> would authorize up to $25 billion in down-payment loans for eligible middle-income buyers. <\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n The ballot measure would allow qualified prospective homebuyers to borrow up to 17% of the sales price of a new home, contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds. The program would not be funded by taxpayers but instead by the interest charged to borrowers on their down-payment loans, also referred to as second mortgages. Any home purchased through the program must be new construction, which could limit its potential reach because of the high cost of building. The proposition does not spell out the terms or interest rates on the loans, which would be worked out if the measure was approved.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n The measure has garnered widespread support, including from Gov. Gavin Newsom, statewide unions and mayors from Santa Monica to San Jos\u00e9. Supporters say restricting the program to new homes could spur construction. But critics warn down-payment debt could burden buyers and that Proposition 37 does little to address a bigger issue: the cost of building.<\/p>\n Proposition 38<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n The Trump administration has frozen, terminated or delayed billions in congressionally approved research grants since last year. Proposition 38 aims to backfill some of that loss by creating a stable source of money to fund immunology and immunotherapy research.<\/p>\n Proposition 38<\/a> would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research to uncover treatments that help the immune system fight diseases such as cancer or Alzheimer\u2019s disease more efficiently.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n The measure would require at least $4.2 billion of the funds to be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer\u2019s. It also would authorize the state to enter a partnership with an immunology and immunotherapy research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health and allocate half of the bond revenue to it.<\/p>\n The remaining funds would be used for competitive grants that focus solely on immunology and immunotherapy research.<\/p>\n Californians would take on an increased cost of $500 million to $600 million annually to repay the bond for about 20 years, according to the Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n The Yes on 38 campaign says the proposition pays for itself; 10% of all proceeds from the licensing of immunotherapies must be returned to the state to offset the total cost of the bond measure, including interest. However, it\u2019s difficult to predict whether any research projects will lead to marketable treatments.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n Proposition 38 was backed by organizations including the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson\u2019s Research and the ALS Assn. as well as a majority of local chapters of Democratic organizations across the state. Supporters say the proposed funding could give those afflicted with chronic illness hope and potentially more options for treatment.<\/p>\n Its opponents have said the proposed criteria for awarding the grant funding would appear to create an extremely small pool of qualified recipients. Only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, would qualify under the proposed criteria, according to No on 38.<\/p>\n Robin Swanson, spokesperson for Yes on 38, said \u201clots of institutions would qualify for funds under this measure.\u201d But she said at a virtual news conference in mid-September that it was \u201cvery likely\u201d that the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy \u201cwill qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria.\u201d<\/p>\n Ultimately, Swanson said, the decision lies with the California Department of Public Health.<\/p>\n More reading<\/p>\n An analysis of Prop. 38<\/a> (California Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office)<\/p>\n This CA proposition will send $4 billion to a single nonprofit. Who\u2019s behind it?<\/a> (Cal Matters)<\/p>\n This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?<\/a> (Cal Matters)<\/p>\n Proposition 39<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Proposition 39<\/a> would require anyone voting in person in California to present a government-issued ID, and those voting by mail ballot to include the last four digits of the government-issued ID number they provided when they registered to vote. In-person voters without ID would be turned away, while mail ballots without an attached ID number that matches their registration would be rejected.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n Opponents contend \u2014 as do many independent election experts \u2014 that California already has robust measures for verifying the eligibility and identity of voters, and that voter fraud, including by noncitizens, is exceedingly rare. The measure is opposed by the state\u2019s Democratic establishment and prominent civil rights groups, who say it will disenfranchise many eligible voters, particularly those of color, who are poor or live in rural communities. Backers \u2014 who include prominent California Republicans and ultrawealthy supporters of President Trump \u2014 say it is necessary to prevent voter fraud and block noncitizens from casting ballots. They have provided little evidence of widespread fraud.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n This is part of a larger national campaign. After his return to the White House last year, Trump began a fresh crusade<\/a> to rewrite election laws across the country.<\/p>\n Proposition 40<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Proposition 40<\/a> would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires\u2019 assets. The tax applies to people with a net worth of at least $1 billion who resided in California on Jan. 1.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n Ninety percent of the tax would fund healthcare, and 10% would go toward education and food assistance.<\/p>\n The tax would affect hundreds of billionaires whose net worth includes assets such as their businesses, stocks and other investments. Real property, pensions and retirement accounts generally would be excluded.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n The billionaire tax was pushed by the Service Employees International Union<\/a>-United Healthcare Workers West and has some labor and progressive support<\/a>, including from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and the state Democratic Party. They say the tax is needed to help the less fortunate and that the super-rich can afford it. But key Democrats and some key unions are not supporting it.<\/p>\n Critics include some of California\u2019s richest people,<\/a> and they have spent a fortune in an effort to defeat it. They say it will hurt innovation and drive the wealthy out of the state, hurting the treasury.<\/p>\n More reading Why unions are divided over Prop. 40<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n The Google co-founder fighting the billionaire tax<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n Inside the massive spending to defeat Prop. 40<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n How the billionaire tax could spark national movement<\/a> (The New Yorker)<\/p>\n The academics behind Prop. 40<\/a> (Sacramento Bee)<\/p>\n Will Prop. 40 really bring an exodus?<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n Why healthcare is divided by Prop. 40<\/a> (Bloomberg)<\/p>\n Taxing the \u201cultrarich,\u201d a guide<\/a> (New York Times)<\/p>\n Proposition 41<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n It\u2019s called the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness and Efficiency in California Government Act. But it is deeply connected to Proposition 40 and is funded by foes of the billionaire tax<\/a>.<\/p>\n Proposition 41<\/a> requires the state auditor to review programs funded by proposed special taxes before they appear on the ballot. More importantly, it also prohibits new state taxes from being exempted from a voter-approved state spending limit.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n The Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office says passage of Proposition 41 could prevent Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax, from becoming law even if voters approve it. This could happen if Proposition 41 receives more \u201cyes\u201d votes than Proposition 40.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n The California Taxpayers Assn., the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce and others back the proposition. They say it would result in the government spending taxpayer dollars more wisely while improving transparency.<\/p>\n The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the group behind the proposed billionaire tax, opposes Proposition 41. In arguments against the measure, SEIU-UHW Chief of Staff Suzanne Jimenez wrote that the billionaires don\u2019t care about government accountability and have been avoiding higher taxes through loopholes and tax breaks.<\/p>\n Proposition 42<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Proposition 42<\/a> would limit the state\u2019s ability to impose certain new taxes. But it\u2019s more complicated and far-reaching than that description might sound. And, yes, it\u2019s also backed by opponents of Proposition 40.<\/p>\n Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on \u201cretirement holdings, individually owned assets, and other forms of personal savings\u201d that take effect after Jan. 1, 2026. It also would bar retroactive taxes on past earnings unless the state is using revenue from the tax to respond to emergencies such as a fire or a flood.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n The Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office says Proposition 42 could nullify Proposition 40 because the two measures conflict with each other. If voters approve both, the one with the most \u201cyes\u201d votes generally would become law, the office says.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n The measure states that its purpose is to protect Californians\u2019 ability to save for retirement and the future, though opponents say it\u2019s meant to trick voters into canceling the billionaire tax.<\/p>\n \u201cTaxes and cost of living are already too high in California \u2014 we need protection against taxes on our personal property and retirement savings,\u201d supporters wrote in favor of the measure. The California Small Business Assn., California Senior Alliance, California Professional Firefighters and other groups back the measure.<\/p>\n \u201cDon\u2019t be fooled \u2014 Prop. 42 is not really about protecting your retirement savings from new taxes,\u201d SEIU-UHW Chief of Staff Suzanne Jimenez wrote in arguments against the proposition. \u201cIt\u2019s a redundant, expensive trick to allow approximately 200 billionaires to keep avoiding paying their own taxes.\u201d<\/p>\n Proposition 44<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Proposition 44<\/a> asks voters to require federally funded community health centers to spend at least 90% of their total annual revenue on \u201cprogram services advancing their charitable purpose.\u201d<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n If the proposition passes, the state attorney general will be responsible for determining what services fall into that category. If spending on administrative or non-healthcare functions exceeded 10% of total revenue, a clinic would have to pay a penalty equal to the amount it overspent.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n Proposition 44 was backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the same union that is pushing Proposition 40, the controversial billionaire tax. The union appears to be the main supporter of the proposal and says the restrictions would prevent excessive spending on executive salaries, fundraisers and other administrative expenses.<\/p>\n There is a diverse array of opponents, including the California Medical Assn., the California Teachers Assn., the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the state Democratic Party and the state Chamber of Commerce. They say the proposition\u2019s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted. A study<\/a> commissioned by the California Primary Care Assn. found that clinics could face up to $1.7 billion in collective penalties in the first year of the measure\u2019s implementation.<\/p>\n More reading<\/p>\n An analysis of Prop. 44<\/a> (California Legislative Analyst\u2019s Office)<\/p>\n More on the measure, spending<\/a> (CalMatters)<\/p>\n Union involved in Prop. 44 faces questions<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n Proposition 45<\/p>\n The basics<\/p>\n Proposition 45<\/a> would impose stricter deadlines on environmental reviews, permits and court challenges. Agencies would have to spell out application requirements up-front and could not make repeated requests for more information or project changes. The measure caps public comment periods, while current law only sets minimum lengths. It also limits what courts may consider in California Environmental Quality Act lawsuits.<\/p>\n The impact<\/p>\n The law clearly would change the CEQA process; whether that would be for better or worse is the subject of debate. Backers say it would make the process faster and easier. Critics say it would roll back important environmental protections.<\/p>\n Dig deeper<\/p>\n The fight over Proposition 45 comes as California struggles to build enough housing to meet demand, causing prices to skyrocket. The price of housing, polls show, is a major issue for California voters.<\/p>\n But the proposition also is touching on another hot-button issue: data centers<\/a>. Supporters and foes are battling over whether the measure would make it easier to build more of those controversial facilities.<\/p>\n More reading<\/p>\n California\u2019s Prop. 45 aims to speed construction projects. Opponents say data centers will benefit<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n CEQA overhaul outrages environmentalists<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n
A powerful union and the birth of the billionaire tax<\/a> (L.A. Times)<\/p>\n