The ballot in every major election in California includes a host of propositions. This year, there are 14! Too often, they are written in confusing (or even misleading) language that can make it difficult decide how you want to vote. To help you out, we are offering this guide:
Prop 1 — Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act: $11.25B in bonds ($10B affordable housing, $1.25B veterans’ home assistance)
Prop 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds — $10 billion for affordable rental housing and homeownership programs, and $1.25 billion for veteran home, farm, and mobile home purchase assistance. The measure, placed on the ballot by the Legislature and would cost the state an estimated $500–600 million annually for about 25 years in bond repayment.
Support: A coalition of California’s mayors— including Jerry Dyer (Fresno) and Daniel Lurie (San Francisco)— is supporting the measure, along with bill co-authors Assemblymember Buffy Wicks and state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon. Supporters argue local governments can’t tackle the housing and homelessness crisis without state funding.
Opposition: There’s no major organized “No” campaign yet, but several Republican lawmakers have pushed back — including Assemblymember David Tangipa, who argues the state has already spent billions on the issue, and state Sen. Tony Strickland, who objects to taking on more debt during a record revenue year.
Prop 2 — Save for California’s Future Act: raises rainy-day fund cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax proceeds
Prop 2 would amend the state constitution to raise the cap on California’s rainy-day fund (the Budget Stabilization Account) from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax proceeds. It would also require larger reserve deposits in years when capital-gains and other asset-related tax revenue spikes, and expand the types of state debt — including school and unemployment insurance loan obligations — that can be paid down using reserve funds.
Support: Backed by Governor Newsom and legislative Democrats, including Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel and state Sen. John Laird. Proponents frame it as fiscal discipline that protects schools, healthcare, and public safety funding during future downturns.
Opposition: No major organized opposition campaign has emerged so far.
Proposition 3: Making the High-Income Tax Rate Permanent
A “yes” vote on Prop 3 would prevent the income tax increase on high earners that’s been in place since 2012 from expiring in 2031. The measure affects individual filers earning roughly $361,000+ and joint filers at $721,000+ (thresholds adjusted annually for inflation), and would maintain an estimated $5–15 billion in annual state revenue that would otherwise be lost. Revenue would be allocated 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges, with local school boards deciding how funds are spent.
Support: Proponents frame Prop 3 as protecting existing school and healthcare funding without creating any new tax — it simply prevents an existing rate from expiring.
Opposition: Opponents say that California already has high income taxes rates and suggest that high earners would to relocate to lower-tax states.
Prop 4 — California Fair Elections Act: public financing for campaigns meeting spending limits; tougher penalties for foreign election contributions
Prop 4 would repeal California’s 1988 ban on public financing of political campaigns (enacted via the original Prop 73), allowing state and local governments to create public campaign financing programs. The measure wouldn’t mandate public financing anywhere — it simply gives jurisdictions the option, paired with required spending limits and taxpayer-fund safeguards. Five charter cities (LA, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Long Beach) already run such systems today.
Support: The “Californians for Fair Elections” campaign is chaired by California Common Cause, the California Clean Money Action Fund, and the League of Women Voters of California, with backing from the California Democratic Party and the ACLU of California. Supporters argue it reduces the influence of big money and opens the door for more candidates to run.
Opposition: The measure passed the Legislature along party lines with unanimous Republican opposition. Critics, including the California Taxpayers Association, argue public dollars shouldn’t fund political ads when they could go toward schools, public safety, and infrastructure.
Prop 5 — Eliminates the successor election in state officer recalls (Lt. Governor would finish a recalled Governor’s term)
Currently, recall ballots include 2 questions. 1) Should the official be recalled and 2) who should replace the official if the recall succeeds? Under Prop 5, the second question would be eliminated and instead the office in question would stay vacant until filled under existing law. In the case of Governor, the Lieutenant Governor would step in to finish a Governor’s term if a recall succeeds. The amendment applies to statewide and legislative recalls.
Support: State Sen. Josh Newman and Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, sponsored the proposal. They argue the current two-question system encourages “bad actors” to target officials they disagree with, in order to replace them with someone who lacks majority support. The League of Women Voters of California also backs the measure.
Opposition: Opposition comes from the Election Integrity Project California some of whose funding comes from “conservative-leaning philanthropic funders.” Their co-founder, Linda Paine, helped found the Santa Clarita Valley Tea Party and the SoCal Liberty Coalition. This group argues that having the (elected) Lieutenant Governor finish the term could “suppress both self-governance and voter participation.”
Prop 37 – Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act
Prop 37, would authorize the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund a new down-payment assistance program. Qualifying buyers would receive a second mortgage covering up to 17% of a home’s purchase price, provided they contribute at least 3% down themselves. The assistance would only apply to newly built homes or newly converted units, with eligibility open to households earning up to 200% of area median income. Unlike a general obligation bond, these bonds would be repaid by borrowers’ own mortgage payments rather than by taxpayers. The measure was sponsored by former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg and qualified with nearly double the required signatures.
Support: The California Coalition for Homeownership leads the campaign, backed by gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, State Controller Malia Cohen, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, the California Democratic Party, the California Association of Realtors, and several carpenters’ unions.
Opposition: No major organized opposition campaign has formed, though Reform California opposes it, citing taxpayer risk, concerns the program could push up housing costs, and the fact that recipients don’t need to be first-time or first-generation buyers.
Prop 38 — $8.4B in bonds for immunology/immunotherapy research
Prop 38 would authorize the state to borrow $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. Half of the money must focus on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. About 50% of the funds would be distributed to a single research institute while the other half would be dispersed as competitive grants. Administrative costs are limited to no more than 2% of funds and the any revenue generated by the funded research first be used to repay the state.
Supporters: Yes on 38 supporters argue that state-level investment is needed because the Trump administration has cut federal health science funding and this initiative would help California retain researchers and keep biomedical work moving forward despite that federal retrenchment. The Yes campaign is largely bankrolled by billionaire surgeon and medical inventor Gary K. Michelson, who also financed the signature-gathering effort. Nonprofits including the Michael J. Fox Foundation, Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, and the Kidney Cancer Association have also contributed, as has the American Association of Immunologists — though it’s the only national research organization backing the measure.
Opposition: No opposition committee has raised enough to require public disclosure but it is worth noting Prop 38 isn’t the only California response to federal cuts to medical research: state Senator Scott Wiener has separately pushed a broader science-funding measure explicitly designed to backfill NIH and other federal research cuts across all scientific fields, not just immunology. That measure stalled in the Assembly but was recently revived and is now headed to the March 2028 ballot. Wiener has drawn a clear line between the two, describing his bond as a broad science-policy measure and characterizing Prop 38 as something narrower: a bond that “primarily funds one particular institute.”
Prop 39 — Voter ID and citizenship-verification requirements (“California voter ID initiative”)
This constitutional amendment would require California voters to show government-issued identification to vote in person, and to write the last four digits of a government ID number on mail-in ballot envelopes. It also directs the state to issue free voter ID cards on request and requires more rigorous maintenance of voter registration rolls. California is currently one of just 14 states without an ID requirement to vote.
Support: Prop 39 is the signature initiative of Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R–San Diego), who chairs the PAC Reform California and previously tried to pass a similar bill through the Legislature before turning to the ballot box. Two-thirds of the money raised for Yes on 39 comes from Illinois shipping-industry billionaire and major national GOP donor Richard Uihlein. DeMaio’s committee kicked in another $3 million, and additional six-figure contributions came from Nicole Shanahan, venture capitalist Douglas Leone, and Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, among others.
Opposition: Opposition is split across two committees:
- “Block Election Rigging,” backed by nurses, teachers, and community health clinic groups, has pulled in about $8.5 million, with its largest contributions coming from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria ($2 million), SEIU-affiliated unions, the California Democratic Party, and Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings ($1 million).
- “Californians for Voting Rights,” sponsored by the ACLU of Northern California and the California Donor Table, has raised about $3.76 million, led by philanthropists Patty Quillin and M. Quinn Delaney at $1.5 million each.
Prop 40 — One-time up-to-5% tax on billionaires’ assets over $1B, funding health care and food assistance
Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California billionaires (residents as of January 1, 2026), with proceeds directed mainly toward healthcare, plus food assistance and education. Sponsors project it could raise roughly $100 billion over five years. It is sponsored by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West.
Support: The California Democratic Party and the California Nurses Association have endorsed the measure, along with other major labor groups. Co-author Emmanuel Saez, French-American economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley, argues it’s essential to preserving healthcare and education funding.
Opposition: Gov. Newsom and gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra both oppose it. They say it’s too narrowly targeted and that wealthy residents may flee the state. Planned Parenthood, the California Medical Association, and the California Teachers Association have called it an unstable funding source. Silicon Valley billionaires — e.g. Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who committed more than $100 million — appear to be bankrolling the opposition
Prop 41 — Requires audits of programs funded by new state special taxes
This initiative would change rules governing how future state taxes work. It is not itself a tax. Prop 41 is one of two initiatives that contain a “poison pill” provision which says that if Prop 41 (the “Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act) receives more “yes” votes than Prop 40 (The Billionaire’s Tax), Prop 40 is nullified even if it also passes.
In addition to the poison pill, the initiative imposes spending limits by closing off the ability of future taxes to be carved out from existing spending limits established in 1979 (Gann Limit.) It also requires pre-election audits for programs that would receive money from some voter-proposed statewide special taxes as well as recurring audits.
Support: Prop 41, like Prop 42 (below) and the opposition to Prop 40 is funded by tech billionaires including Google co-founder Sergey Brin. Other notable donors include Stewart Resnick, Chris Larsen, Peter Thiel, John Doerr, Tony Xu, Max Levchin, and Patrick Collison. Their group, Building a Better California is framing Prop 41 as a good-government measure but most of its work has focused on challenging or shaping tax policies affecting high-net-worth individuals.
Opposition: The chief opponent is SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West — the sponsor of Prop 40 — which argues Prop 41 isn’t really about auditing waste, but is designed to trick voters into unknowingly blocking the billionaire wealth tax. The California Democratic Party and the California State PTA have also taken formal “oppose” positions, with the PTA warning the measure could redirect potential surplus revenue away from schools and children’s health programs and risks nullifying the funding Prop 40 would provide.
Prop 42 — Bars new state taxes on personal property (retirement accounts, financial assets, etc.) and retroactive taxes
Prop 42 doesn’t remove any existing tax — California doesn’t currently tax people for owning stocks, retirement accounts, or other financial assets. What Prop 42 would do is put a constitutional barrier against creating such taxes (e.g. wealth taxes) in the future.
- Prohibit new state taxes on ownership of personal property (anything owned besides real estate) — specifically covering financial assets, retirement and investment accounts, business interests, and intellectual property.
- Restrict certain retroactive taxes based on a taxpayer’s past activities—e.g. wealth accumulated before the tax was imposed.
- Contains the same “poison pill” as Prop 41. Would potentially block Prop 40 (the billionaire wealth tax) if Prop 42 gets more “yes” votes.
Support: Supporters attempt to frame Prop 42 as protecting ordinary retirement savings from “double taxation.” It is backed by tech billionaire’s Building a Better California, Reform California, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, and the California Chamber of Commerce.
Opposition: The California Democratic Party and the California State PTA both oppose the measure. SEIU-UHW has called it a “billionaire-funded trick” designed less to protect retirement savings than to legally neutralize Prop 40.
The Prop 40/41/42 Connection
Because both Prop 41 and Prop 42 carry poison-pill provisions, a “yes” vote on either one isn’t just about audits or personal property taxes in the abstract — it also functions as a vote to void Prop 40 if that measure outpolls the billionaire tax. This is why the three campaigns are so closely intertwined in coverage, and why some of the same funders (billionaires) are pouring money into passing 41 and 42 while defeating 40.
Prop 43 — Requires 2/3 voter approval for local special taxes (incl. citizen initiatives); limits local property (ad valorem) taxes
Prop 43 would require a two-thirds supermajority vote to approve local special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives, starting January 1, 2027. It would prevent local tax initiatives from passing with a simple majority. The amendment originated as ACA 22, authored by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, reportedly as a compromise to persuade the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to withdraw a broader anti-tax initiative from the ballot.
Support: Backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California, a PAC headed by Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio. Sen. Tony Strickland says the measure defends “the protections [Prop 13] provides for taxpayers and homeowners.”
Opposition: Opposed by Evolve California, a public-education-funding advocacy group, and Seamless Bay Area, which warns the higher threshold would hurt future transit and affordable housing funding efforts. The measure’s own author, Buffy Wicks, opposes it explaining ACA 22 was a political trade-off to head off a broader anti-tax measure. Critics argue the two-thirds threshold lets a minority of voters block revenue measures that most residents support.
Prop 44 — Requires nonprofit community health clinics to spend 90% of revenue on program services
California’s roughly 2,000 nonprofit “safety net” clinics currently spend an average of 80% of their revenue directly on patient care. Proposition 44 would raise that floor to 90%, capping administrative costs — including executive salaries — at 10% of revenue. The state Attorney General would define which expenses count toward patient care, and clinics that fall short would face state penalties, recoverable if they come into compliance within five years.
Support: The measure was placed on the ballot by the labor union SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which had unsuccessfully pushed similar legislation the year before. Clinics tried to keep the measure off the ballot through a lawsuit, which failed. SEIU is also the primary financial backer of the “Yes” campaign.
Opposition: The opposition campaign, “Protect Patients: Stop the Attack on Community Health Centers and Clinics,” is sponsored by the California Primary Care Association and has raised nearly $16.7 million — almost entirely from the clinics themselves. Their research argues that Prop 45 would mean that 183 of 202 clinics would not currently meet the 90% threshold and they warn that many of clinics would to operate at a loss and there would be a risk of service cuts or closures.
Prop 45 — Streamlines CEQA environmental review for housing, transit, water, and clean energy projects
Proposition 45 would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to create an expedited review track for projects designated “essential” — most housing, transportation, water, clean energy, health facility, wildfire mitigation, education, and broadband projects. Eligible projects would get a 365-business-day cap on environmental review, and courts would be required to rule on related lawsuits within 270 days. The measure would also limit the evidence and remedies available to courts (allowing them to halt only the noncompliant portion of a project rather than the whole thing), narrow tribal consultation requirements, limit public comment periods, and lock in review standards to the date a project application is submitted.
Support: The measure was written and sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, campaigning under the name “Building a More Affordable California.” Top funders of the “Yes” committee include: Building a Better California (the same billionaire-backed advocacy group that is also funding Propositions 41 and 42 in the fight over the billionaire wealth tax, Prop 40.) They argue that CEQA delays drive up housing and energy costs. Other supporters include a coalition of over 160 organizations spanning water, housing, clean energy, small business, and healthcare interests.
Opposition: Opponents argue the measure guts CEQA protections, reduces public input on nearby development, and primarily benefits the gas/electric utilities and corporations funding it — including potentially fast-tracking data centers and other polluting projects — without any requirement to actually lower housing or utility costs for consumers. The opposition includes:
- National Wildlife Federation
- California Communities Against Toxics
- California Environmental Voters
- California Environmental Justice Alliance
- California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
- Clean Water Action
- Coalition for Clean Air
- Physicians for Social Responsibility–Los Angeles
- Planning and Conservation League
- Middle Class Taxpayers Association
