# California Statewide Propositions — November 3, 2026 General Election Research compiled 2026-11-03 (Election Day). This is a neutral summary with no recommendations. ## Overview - **14 statewide measures** qualified, per the CA Secretary of State's qualified-measures page: Props **1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45**. (The jump from 5 to 37 is as officially assigned; the reason for the gap was not researched.) - **How they got on the ballot (matches the reported 5/9 split):** - Legislature (5): Props 1, 2, 4, 5, 43. - Citizen initiatives (9): Props 3, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45. - **ACA 13** (a legislative constitutional amendment) was **removed from the ballot on June 25, 2026** and is not on this ballot. - **Linked tax measures (important for voters to understand):** Props **41** and **42** are competing measures funded by opponents of Prop **40** (the billionaire tax). The LAO says that if Prop 41 *or* Prop 42 gets more "yes" votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 "could be blocked from becoming law even if it wins a majority of yes votes," because courts could find the measures conflict. - Mail ballots must be postmarked by Nov 3 and received by Nov 10, 2026. ### Quick reference | Prop | Short title (official) | Type | Placed by | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs ($11.25B) | Bond (legislative statute) | Legislature | | 2 | Increases State's Rainy Day Fund | Legislative constitutional amendment | Legislature | | 3 | Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes | Initiative constitutional amendment | Petition | | 4 | Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns | Legislative statute | Legislature | | 5 | Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers | Legislative constitutional amendment | Legislature | | 37 | Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes ($25B revenue bonds) | Initiative statute | Petition | | 38 | Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research ($8.4B) | Bond (initiative statute) | Petition | | 39 | Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification | Initiative constitutional amendment | Petition | | 40 | Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers (billionaire tax) | Initiative constitutional amendment and statute | Petition | | 41 | Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes | Initiative constitutional amendment | Petition | | 42 | Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes | Initiative constitutional amendment | Petition | | 43 | Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services | Legislative constitutional amendment | Legislature | | 44 | Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services | Initiative statute | Petition | | 45 | Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects (CEQA) | Initiative statute | Petition | ### Polling snapshot (most recent found) | Prop | PPIC Sept 4–10 (1,103 likely voters) | PPIC Oct 16–22 (1,086 likely voters, ±3.8) | Berkeley IGS Oct 19–25 | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | 55% yes | not found | not polled | | 3 | not found | majority yes reported (numbers unconfirmed) | IGS Sept release: ~20-pt lead | | 37 | 61% yes | not found | not polled | | 38 | 55% yes | not found | not polled | | 39 | 43% yes | 41% yes / 58% no | 37% yes / ~57% no / 5% undecided | | 40 | 52% yes / 42% no | 46% yes / 52% no | 42% yes / 50% no / 8% undecided | | 41 | 51% yes | 48% yes / 49% no | "slightly ahead" (numbers not reported) | | 42 | 54% yes | 51% yes | "slightly ahead" (numbers not reported) | | 43 | 43% yes | not found | not polled | | 45 | 49% yes (73% in a July PPIC poll with different wording) | 46% yes / 50% no (as reported by KQED) | not polled | No polling found for Props 2, 4, 5, 44. Sources: [SF Standard (PPIC Oct)](https://sfstandard.com/2026/10/27/billionaire-tax-prop-40-ppic-poll-october/), [CPA Practice Advisor (PPIC Sept)](https://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/2026/09/23/california-voters-back-billionaire-tax-and-measures-that-could-block-it-new-poll-finds/190410/), [KQED (IGS + PPIC Oct)](https://www.kqed.org/news/12106950/is-californias-proposed-billionaire-tax-in-trouble-new-polls-find-bad-news), [Berkeley IGS releases](https://igs.berkeley.edu/research/berkeley-igs-poll/2026-berkeley-igs-poll-releases). ### Governor Newsom's stated positions (per CalMatters, Oct 9, 2026) Supports: 1, 2 (signed ballot argument), 42. Opposes: 39, 40, 43, 44. No position (as of Oct 9–13): 41, 45. Not stated in source: 3, 4, 5, 37, 38. Source: [CalMatters](https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/). (Prop 1 support per CalMatters prop page; Prop 2 per official ballot argument.) ### Primary sources used throughout - CA SOS qualified measures: https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measures - Official Voter Information Guide: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/{N}/index.htm - LAO analyses: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Propositions (each at `lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number={N}&year=2026`) - CalMatters 2026 voter guide: https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/ --- ## Proposition 1 — Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs **Type:** General obligation bond; legislative statute (placed by the Legislature). Reported to be the "Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026" (SB 417), per an SOS number-assignment document (bill number not independently confirmed). **What it does:** Authorizes the state to borrow **$11.25 billion** through general obligation bonds for housing programs. Funding goes to multifamily affordable rental housing, mortgages for veterans (about **$1.25 billion** for veteran housing), supportive housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, preserving existing affordable housing, and down-payment assistance. CalMatters reports other funded categories include farmworker, student, and tribal housing, and estimates up to 40,000 rental units plus help for about 40,000 households to buy homes. **A YES vote means:** "The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing." **A NO vote means:** "The state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** Increased state costs of about **$500 million to $600 million per year for about 25 years** to repay the bonds. **Supporters:** Gov. Gavin Newsom; California Democratic Party; California Apartment Association; California Labor Federation/AFL-CIO; ballot-argument signers US Vets, California Federation of Teachers, Self-Help for the Elderly, Habitat for Humanity California, California Alliance of Child & Family Services. Editorial: Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle. - Arguments: Builds affordable homes for veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, working families and essential workers; helps reduce homelessness (180,000+ homeless Californians) by funding shovel-ready projects; includes oversight and no new taxes. **Opponents:** **No argument against was submitted** to the official guide. Some Republican legislators opposed it. Editorial opposition: Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune, Mercury News. - Arguments: Adds long-term debt; critics say it "uses veterans" to build support while doing little for them, and doesn't address why construction is so expensive. **Polling:** PPIC Sept 2026: 55% yes among likely voters. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/1/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=1&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-1-housing-bond/ --- ## Proposition 2 — Increases State's Rainy Day Fund **Type:** Legislative constitutional amendment. **What it does:** Changes the rules for the state's main reserve, the Budget Stabilization Account (created by voters' Prop 2 in 2014). Required deposits (0.75% of General Fund taxes yearly, plus extra deposits in high capital-gains years) would continue until the fund reaches **20%** of General Fund taxes, up from today's **10%** cap, with larger deposits when investment-gains revenue is very high. Required extra debt payments would be extended from **2030 to 2040** and could be used for more types of debt (e.g., certain school payments, internal borrowing, federal unemployment-insurance loans). Reserve deposits would count toward the state's constitutional spending limit (Gann limit) only when withdrawn, not when deposited. **A YES vote means:** "Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. State budget reserves would be higher. The state would make extra debt payments for a longer period." **A NO vote means:** "Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "State budget reserves would be higher." (Context: reserves currently about $20B; General Fund spending about $250B/year.) **Supporters:** Gov. Newsom; Xavier Becerra; Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel; California Professional Firefighters; LA Area Chamber of Commerce; California Democratic Party; legislative Democrats. Editorial: Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle. - Arguments: CA revenue is volatile and stock-market-dependent; saving more in good years protects schools, health care, and public safety in downturns; limits overspending during surpluses; bipartisan support. **Opponents:** Assemblymember David Tangipa (R) signed the official argument against; Reform California; legislative Republicans. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register. - Arguments: Excluding deposits from the spending limit makes taxpayer rebates less likely; reserves could become a "slush fund"; adds no new money for education, health or public safety. **Polling:** None found. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/2/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=2&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-2-rainy-day-fund/ --- ## Proposition 3 — Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes **Type:** Initiative constitutional amendment (sponsored by the California Teachers Association). **What it does:** Makes permanent the higher income-tax rates on high earners first approved by voters in 2012 (Prop 30) and extended in 2016 (Prop 55), which are currently set to **expire in 2031**. The ballot summary describes the affected taxpayers as individuals earning over **$371,000** (inflation-adjusted annually); CalMatters describes the rates as 10.3% to 12.3% on the top brackets. Revenue is directed primarily to public education, with health care also named in the title. The measure includes accountability/audit provisions. - *Discrepancy note:* CalMatters says 89% of revenue goes to K-12 and 11% to community colleges, with any excess to health care; the LAO describes roughly 40% going to K-14 education under the existing school-funding formula, with the rest to other programs and reserves. The exact allocation is **unconfirmed** — consult the full LAO analysis. **A YES vote means:** "An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031." **A NO vote means:** "An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue" by making the temporary increase permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031. Amount varies with the stock market. **Supporters:** California Teachers Association; California School Employees Association; California State PTA; CA School Nurses Organization; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; California Medical Association; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, Mercury News. - Arguments: Protects school and health funding without raising taxes; letting it lapse would cut up to $15B/year and likely cause layoffs; avoids a tax cut for the top ~2%. **Opponents:** California Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Reform California. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register. - Arguments: Californians already pay among the nation's highest taxes; the tax was promised as "temporary"; fix inefficient spending first; high earners may leave the state. **Polling:** Berkeley IGS (Sept 25 release) reported Prop 3 holding a ~20-point lead; PPIC October reportedly found majority support (exact numbers unconfirmed). **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/3/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=3&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-3-high-income-tax/ --- ## Proposition 4 — Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns **Type:** Legislative statute. **What it does:** Repeals a 1988 ban that prevents the state and most local governments from offering public financing to candidates' campaigns (currently only a handful of charter cities, such as Berkeley and San Francisco, have such programs). Governments could *choose* to create programs; nothing is required. Public funding programs could not use money earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety, and there would be limits on how funds are used and who could receive them. **A YES vote means:** "State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them." **A NO vote means:** "State and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** Ongoing state costs of a few hundred thousand dollars per year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to advise governments on public financing programs. Any program costs would depend on future decisions by state/local governments. **Supporters:** League of Women Voters of CA; California Common Cause; California Clean Money Campaign; California Nurses Association; Consumer Watchdog; Social Security Works; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee. - Arguments: California is the only state that bans public campaign financing; reduces the influence of big donors and special interests and amplifies small donors; "Elections should be won, not bought." **Opponents:** California Taxpayers Association; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of CA; United Latinos Action; Reform California. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, SF Chronicle, Mercury News. - Arguments: Taxpayers would fund candidates (including negative campaigns) they don't support; no cap on number of candidates or amounts; costly to set up and open to abuse. **Polling:** None found. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/4/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=4&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-4-public-fundraising/ --- ## Proposition 5 — Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers **Type:** Legislative constitutional amendment (authored by state Sen. Josh Newman, who was himself recalled in 2018; proposal originated with the Secretary of State's office after the 2021 Newsom recall). **What it does:** Today, a recall ballot asks (1) whether to remove the official and (2) who should replace them, on the same ballot. Prop 5 eliminates the replacement question. If an official is recalled, the vacancy would be filled by a later special election or by appointment depending on the office and timing; if the governor were recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over until a new governor is elected. The recalled official could run in the later election. **A YES vote means:** "Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy. Instead, vacancies typically would be filled through special elections or appointments, depending on the office and timing." **A NO vote means:** "Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Net fiscal effect unknown." In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer elections, depending on the office recalled. **Supporters:** Sen. Josh Newman; Secretary of State Shirley Weber; League of Women Voters of CA; California Common Cause; Indivisible CA: StateStrong; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee. - Arguments: Returns recall to its purpose (removing officials for misconduct); closes a loophole letting a replacement win with a small plurality; reduces politics and cost of recalls. **Opponents:** California Republican Party; Election Integrity Project California; Reform California; nearly all legislative Republicans. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, SF Chronicle, Mercury News. (The official guide's opposing committee/contact is **unconfirmed** — the page fetch showed an argument against but no listed committee.) - Arguments: Takes away voters' right to choose the replacement; for statewide offices, politicians (or the lieutenant governor) would effectively pick the successor; separate later elections cost more and leave offices vacant; protects incumbents. **Context:** The current two-question process is how Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor in 2003. **Polling:** None found. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/5/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=5&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-5-recall-reform/ --- ## Proposition 37 — Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes **Type:** Initiative statute (placed by a coalition of real-estate interests and labor unions). **What it does:** Authorizes the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to **$25 billion in revenue bonds** (repaid by borrowers, not the General Fund) to offer fixed-rate loans covering up to **17%** of the purchase price of a **newly built** home or condo priced below about **$1.5 million**. Buyers must be California residents who live in the home, meet income limits (up to roughly twice area median income per CalMatters), and make at least a **3% down payment**. Loans are repaid through monthly payments; per CalMatters, private lenders—not taxpayers—bear default risk. **A YES vote means:** "The state would create a new homebuying assistance program. The state could sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund the program. Bonds would be paid back by homeowners' payments on their home loans." **A NO vote means:** "The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "No direct state or local costs." **Supporters:** State Treasurer Fiona Ma; United Nurses Associations of California; California Conference of Carpenters; California Association of Realtors; SEIU; Xavier Becerra; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle. - Arguments: A 20% down payment is out of reach for many middle-class buyers; low-interest loans funded by private bond investors, not taxpayers; residency, occupancy and income requirements plus audits. **Opponents:** **No argument against was submitted** to the official guide. CalMatters lists Reform California and the League of Women Voters as opposed. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, Mercury News. - Arguments: The state shouldn't be in the mortgage business; doesn't address the root causes of high housing costs; could push buyers into deeper debt. **Polling:** PPIC Sept 2026: 61% yes among likely voters. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=37&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-37-homebuyers-loan/ --- ## Proposition 38 — Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research **Type:** General obligation bond; initiative statute (placed by surgeon/inventor and philanthropist Gary Michelson). **What it does:** Authorizes **$8.4 billion** in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research (aimed at cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc.). **Half** would go to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit research institute; the other half would fund competitive research grants to public universities and nonprofits. Drugs developed with the funding would have to be discounted 20% for Californians, and a share of drug revenue (10%, per CalMatters) would go to the state General Fund. The measure text does not name the institute; reporting (CalMatters, KPBS, LAist) indicates only the **California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy**, co-founded by Michelson, would likely qualify (the Yes campaign disputes that the language is tailored to it). **A YES vote means:** "The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities." **A NO vote means:** "The state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** Increased state costs of **$500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years** to repay the bonds, potentially offset partly or fully if the research produces revenue for the state. (Some news reports cite 25 years; the official guide says about 20.) **Supporters:** Gary Michelson / Michelson Center for Public Policy; Alzheimer's Association; Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research; Alzheimer's Los Angeles; Kidney Cancer Association; American Nurses Association–California; American Association of Immunologists; City of Hope; California Democratic Party. - Arguments: Most diseases involve the immune system, so immunotherapy research could produce cures; replaces federal research funding being cut; 20% drug discount and independent audits; designed to pay back taxpayers. **Opponents:** Robert M. Kaplan, PhD (Stanford, signed official argument against); "No on 38" campaign led by California Health Policy Strategies; League of Women Voters; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (reported). Editorial: Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, Mercury News. - Arguments: Decades of new bond debt; half the money to one nonprofit (which reportedly had only ~3 employees); too narrow a slice of biomedical research; research funding belongs in the normal budget process. **Polling:** PPIC Sept 2026: 55% yes among likely voters. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/38/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=38&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-38-research-bond/ · https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/07/31/is-this-proposition-a-4-billion-giveaway-to-a-billionaire-backed-la-research-center --- ## Proposition 39 — Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification **Type:** Initiative constitutional amendment (placed by conservative groups). **What it does:** Requires voters to show government-issued ID to vote in person. Mail ballots would be invalid unless the voter writes the last four digits of a designated government-issued ID number on the envelope, matched to their registration (voters would select an ID in their registration). Election officials would have to use government data to verify registered voters' citizenship and report verification rates by county. The state would provide a free voter ID card on request, and the State Auditor would review compliance every odd-numbered year. The Legislature would need to pass follow-up laws defining accepted IDs and other details. **A YES vote means:** "Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote." **A NO vote means:** "A voter's identity would continue to be established with the voter's signature." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** State and local costs "of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements," depending on future decisions. **Supporters:** Californians for Voter ID; The Transparency Foundation; Latino American Political Association; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; CA Women's Leadership Association; California Republican Party; Reform California; Richard Uihlein (Uline CEO, funder). Editorial: Orange County Register. - Arguments: Most states require voter ID; increases trust and confidence in elections; supporters say majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans back voter ID. **Opponents:** ACLU California Action; Common Cause; League of Women Voters of CA; California Democratic Party; Gov. Newsom. Editorial: Sacramento Bee, San Diego Union-Tribune, SF Chronicle, Mercury News. - Arguments: Costly, unnecessary barriers for eligible voters, falling hardest on people with disabilities, low incomes, or who recently moved; risks rejecting valid mail ballots; exposes personal information to identity theft; wastes taxpayer money. **Polling:** PPIC Oct 16–22: 41% yes / 58% no. Berkeley IGS Oct 19–25: 37% yes, ~57% no, 5% undecided. (Earlier: IGS March ~44/45; PPIC Sept 43% yes.) **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/39/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=39&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-39-voter-id/ --- ## Proposition 40 — Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers ("Billionaire Tax") **Type:** Initiative constitutional amendment and statute (sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West). **What it does:** Imposes a **one-time 5% tax on the net worth** of billionaires (net worth over $1 billion) who were California residents on **January 1, 2026** — roughly 200 people, per CalMatters. Real estate, pensions and retirement accounts are generally excluded from the calculation. The tax is due in 2027, and taxpayers may spread payments over five years (paying more in total). **90%** of revenue must go to public health care services (CalMatters: Medi-Cal), with the rest for education, food assistance, and administration. Revenue is exempt from the state spending limit and from the school-funding guarantee (Prop 98). **A YES vote means:** "The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth." **A NO vote means:** "The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Temporary state revenue increase from a new wealth tax on billionaires. These wealth tax revenues probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years." Also a "possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in state income tax revenue collected from billionaires" (e.g., if some leave the state), plus administrative costs of tens of millions per year for several years, paid from the new revenue. (Sponsor SEIU-UHW projects ~$100B over five years; that is the sponsor's figure, not LAO's.) **Conflict with Props 41 and 42:** Per LAO, if Prop 41 or Prop 42 receives more "yes" votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 could be blocked even if it passes. **Supporters:** SEIU-UHW; U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders; Teamsters California; AFSCME California; California Labor Federation; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee. - Arguments: Federal health-care cuts (H.R. 1 / Medicaid reductions) have cost coverage for over a million Californians and raised premiums; billionaires gained most from recent federal tax cuts and should pay their fair share instead of the middle class; prevents hospital and clinic closures. **Opponents:** Gov. Gavin Newsom; California Teachers Association; California Medical Association; California Children's Hospital Association; California Primary Care Association; California Professional Firefighters; State Building & Construction Trades Council; California School Boards Association; California Taxpayers Association; California Business Roundtable; Planned Parenthood (per CalMatters); Chris Larsen; Ron Conway. Editorial: LA Times, SF Chronicle, Mercury News, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register. - Arguments: Would drive billionaires (and their income-tax payments) out of the state, hurting the economy and long-term budget; a flawed one-time fix that doesn't lower health costs or solve long-term funding; opponents claim a "loophole" could expose others to the tax and cite a lack of accountability. **Polling:** PPIC Oct 16–22: 46% yes / 52% no (down from 52% yes in Sept). Berkeley IGS Oct 19–25: 42% yes / 50% no / 8% undecided. **Money:** Widely reported as the most expensive ballot fight of the cycle; reported opposition spending ranges from ~$96M in ad bookings to $300M+ raised (figures vary by source/date — treat as approximate). Supporters reported ~$32M raised. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/40/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=40&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-40-billionaire-tax/ · https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/ · https://www.kqed.org/news/12106950/is-californias-proposed-billionaire-tax-in-trouble-new-polls-find-bad-news --- ## Proposition 41 — Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes **Type:** Initiative constitutional amendment (placed by opponents of Prop 40; funded in part by Sergey Brin). **What it does:** Nullifies state taxes enacted after **January 1, 2026** that exempt their revenue from the voter-approved state spending limit (Gann limit) — which would affect Prop 40, whose revenue is exempt. Requires the State Auditor to audit programs that would receive revenue from a proposed initiative special tax **before** it reaches the ballot (once 25% of signatures are gathered), including identifying ways to cut program costs 10% a year, with a summary placed in the voter guide. Also requires audits every four years of programs funded by new or increased special taxes enacted after Jan 1, 2026. **A YES vote means (paraphrased from official guide):** The State Auditor would review programs funded by a proposed initiative special tax before it goes to voters, and regularly review programs funded by new special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature; the state might be unable to exclude new special-tax spending from its spending limit. **A NO vote means:** The State Auditor's review duties would not change. "The state spending limit requirements would not change." *(Exact verbatim YES/NO text: see the official guide link.)* **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Unknown net fiscal effect." Increased State Auditor costs for new audits, mostly paid from new special-tax revenue; possible savings from implementing audit recommendations. **Conflict with Prop 40:** If Prop 41 gets more yes votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 could be blocked (LAO). **Supporters:** Californians for Transparency and Accountability (Yes on 41); CA Society of CPAs (CalCPA); CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; California Taxpayers Association; Reform California; Sergey Brin; Stewart Resnick. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register. - Arguments: Taxpayers deserve results (e.g., on homelessness spending) for high taxes; independent audits increase transparency and accountability; counting new taxes toward the spending limit makes rebates more likely. **Opponents:** SEIU-UHW; Sen. Bernie Sanders; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, Mercury News. (Gov. Newsom: no position as of Oct 13.) - Arguments: Not really about audits — a billionaire-funded effort to cancel the billionaire tax ("designed to trick voters"); could cost Californians health care. **Polling:** PPIC Sept: 51% yes. PPIC Oct: 48% yes / 49% no. IGS Oct: slightly ahead (numbers not published in source found). **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/41/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=41&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-41-tax-audits/ --- ## Proposition 42 — Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes **Type:** Initiative constitutional amendment (placed by opponents of Prop 40; financed by Sergey Brin). **What it does:** Bars new **state** taxes on the ownership of personal property — everything people own other than real estate, including financial assets like stocks, investment and retirement accounts, business interests, and items such as art. Also limits new state taxes that apply retroactively to past activities. Voids conflicting taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 (per official summary), which would include Prop 40's wealth tax. It does not affect existing local property taxes on real estate. **A YES vote means:** "The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property." **A NO vote means:** "The state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future." **Conflict with Prop 40:** If Prop 42 gets more yes votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 could be blocked (LAO). **Supporters:** Gov. Gavin Newsom (endorsed Oct 9); Yes on 42—Protect Retirement and Life Savings; California Professional Firefighters; State Building & Construction Trades Council; AMVETS Department of CA; Peace Officers Research Association of California; Building a Better California; Reform California; Sergey Brin. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register. - Arguments: Prevents double taxation of savings and retirement already taxed when earned; blocks taxes on unrealized "paper" gains; protects pensions and 401(k)s from future wealth taxes. **Opponents:** SEIU-UHW; Sen. Bernie Sanders; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, Mercury News. - Arguments: Billionaire-funded measure to undo the billionaire tax and make any future wealth tax impossible; would cost Californians health care; mainly protects the ultra-wealthy, not ordinary savers. **Polling:** PPIC Sept: 54% yes. PPIC Oct: 51% yes. IGS Oct: slightly ahead (no-side gained 11 pts since prior month). **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/42/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=42&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-42-property-taxes/ · https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/10/newsom-tax-propositions-november-election/ --- ## Proposition 43 — Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services **Type:** Legislative constitutional amendment. Per CalMatters, it reflects a deal between legislators and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to keep a more restrictive tax initiative off the ballot. **What it does:** Local special taxes (taxes for a specific purpose) proposed by a city council, county board, etc. already need **two-thirds** voter approval, but recent court decisions (commonly associated with the 2017 *Upland* case — not named in the LAO text) allow special taxes placed on the ballot by **citizen initiative** to pass by simple majority. Beginning **January 1, 2027**, Prop 43 would require two-thirds approval for new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by voters as well. **A YES vote means:** "Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters." **A NO vote means:** "Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes." **Supporters:** Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Jon Coupal); California Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of CA; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Reform California. Editorial: Southern California News Group / Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune, Mercury News. - Arguments: Restores Prop 13's two-thirds rule for special taxes (sales, parcel, real-estate transfer, utility taxes); closes a court-created loophole used by special interests in low-turnout elections; protects homeowners and renters. **Opponents:** Gov. Newsom; California Professional Firefighters; California Federation of Teachers; Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA; SEIU Local 1000; California Democratic Party. Editorial: Sacramento Bee. - Arguments: Restricts voters' ability to fund fire, 911, schools, roads, hospitals and housing; lets about one-third of voters block measures nearly two-thirds support; ties local governments' hands. **Polling:** PPIC Sept: 43% yes. **Local note (Santa Clara County / San Jose):** Would apply to future citizen-initiated local special taxes in the voter's city, county, school and special districts; does not undo taxes already approved before 2027 (per LAO's description of "new, increased, or extended" taxes beginning 2027). **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/43/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=43&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-43-tax-threshold/ --- ## Proposition 44 — Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services **Type:** Initiative statute (sponsored by SEIU-UHW after a similar bill failed in the Legislature). **What it does:** Requires private nonprofit **Federally Qualified Health Centers** (community clinics providing primary care in medically underserved areas, largely to low-income patients) to spend at least **90%** of their annual revenue on "program services" such as patient care. The Attorney General would issue guidance on what spending qualifies, and clinics falling short could be fined. A lawsuit by clinics to keep it off the ballot failed. **A YES vote means:** "Certain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue each year on providing health care services." **A NO vote means:** "The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees." **Supporters:** SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (Yes on Prop 44; contact Gustavo Medina). The official guide lists no other named supporting organizations (supporter list beyond SEIU-UHW unconfirmed). - Arguments: Holds clinics and executives accountable; ensures money goes to patients rather than executive pay and overhead; more important as federal cuts (H.R. 1) increase the uninsured. **Opponents:** No on Prop 44 campaign; California Primary Care Association; California Medical Association; American Academy of Pediatrics CA; CA Academy of Family Physicians; CA School Nurses Organization; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; California Hospital Association; California Democratic Party; Gov. Newsom. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, East Bay Times. - Arguments: Clinics are already heavily regulated; would cost clinics an estimated $1.7B+ in noncompliance fees in the first year (opponents' estimate), forcing service cuts or closures of hundreds of clinics serving millions. **Context:** Same union (SEIU-UHW) sponsors Prop 40. **Polling:** None found. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/44/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=44&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-44-clinic-funding/ --- ## Proposition 45 — Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects (CEQA) **Type:** Initiative statute (proponent: California Chamber of Commerce). **What it does:** Creates an optional, faster track under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects designated "essential" — including most housing, transportation (roads/bridges), water, schools, health facilities, broadband, clean energy, and wildfire-mitigation projects. It sets binding deadlines, including a **365-business-day** limit to complete an environmental impact report and a deadline (reported as **270 days**) for courts to resolve CEQA lawsuits. It also requires agencies to specify application requirements up front, judges impacts under the rules in place at application, lets applicants analyze a single alternative, caps public-comment periods, limits tribal consultation to federally recognized California tribes, narrows what courts can consider, and lets courts halt only the noncompliant part of a project. **A YES vote means:** "Certain public and private projects would be eligible for new project review and court challenge procedures. For example, new procedures would tighten time limits for environmental review and reduce the scope of what courts can consider when reviewing legal challenges." **A NO vote means:** "Public and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures." **Fiscal impact (LAO):** "Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually—potentially exceeding $100 million annually—to implement new project review and court challenge procedures," partly offset by fees. "In the longer term, uncertain, but potentially more significant positive or negative fiscal effects," depending on how many projects get built and their environmental impacts. **Supporters:** California Chamber of Commerce; California Republican Party; California Hospital Association; California Children's Hospital Association; California Primary Care Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; California LULAC; California Building Industry Association. Editorial: San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, Mercury News. - Arguments: CEQA is outdated and enables frivolous litigation and costly delays that raise housing and infrastructure costs; speeds housing, water, schools, hospitals, clean energy and wildfire prevention while keeping core environmental protections. **Opponents:** California Labor Federation; California Democratic Party; California Nurses Association; Sierra Club California; Coalition for Clean Air; California Environmental Voters; National Wildlife Federation; Physicians for Social Responsibility–LA; Clean Water Action; Californians Against Waste; Western Center on Law & Poverty; League of Women Voters of CA. Editorial: SF Chronicle. (Gov. Newsom: no position as of Oct 13.) - Arguments: Weakens CEQA and reduces public and environmental review of projects in local communities; benefits corporate interests at the expense of public health, air and water; strips agencies of enforcement tools and shifts costs to taxpayers. **Polling:** PPIC July: 73% yes (different wording, pre-ballot label). PPIC Sept: 49% yes. PPIC Oct (as reported by KQED): 46% yes / 50% no. **Sources:** https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/45/index.htm · https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=45&year=2026 · https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2026/proposition-45-environmental-review/ --- ## Unconfirmed / caveats - **Verbatim YES/NO text:** Pulled from the official guide via an automated page reader; most is quoted, but Prop 41's YES/NO text is paraphrased, and minor wording differences are possible elsewhere. Verify against voterguide.sos.ca.gov before publishing quotes. - **Prop 1 bill number (SB 417)** and formal act name: from an SOS document via search snippet; not independently confirmed. - **Prop 3 revenue allocation:** Sources differ (CalMatters vs. LAO); exact split unconfirmed. - **Prop 3 polling numbers:** Only qualitative ("solid 20-point lead" in IGS Sept; majority in PPIC Oct) — exact figures unconfirmed. - **Prop 5 official opposing committee:** Not confirmed. - **Prop 38 term:** Official guide says about 20 years of repayment; some news reports say 25. - **Prop 38 institute identity:** Not named in measure text; identification as the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy is from news reporting. - **Prop 43 "Upland" decision:** The LAO text refers to "recent court decisions" without naming the case; the Upland reference is general background. - **Prop 44 supporters** beyond sponsor SEIU-UHW: not found. - **Prop 45 court deadline (270 days):** From CalMatters; LAO text references a deadline without the number in the portion read. - **Prop 40 campaign spending:** Figures vary widely across outlets by date and definition. - **No polling found** for Props 2, 4, 5, 44; no October polling found for Props 1, 37, 38, 43.