Compiled from CalMatters
California voters are weighing a raft of ballot measures on the Nov. 3 ballot, many of which would incur significant state spending and affect taxpayers in various ways. The following summaries of each measure — including the pros and cons of each — were compiled from CalMatters, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization based in Sacramento that covers state politics, public policy and quality-of-life issues.
Proposition 1: Borrow $11.25 billion for housing
Prop. 1 would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund various affordable housing programs. Of that total amount, $1.25 billion would go toward veteran housing, while the rest would fund rental homes, homeownership programs, farmworker housing, affordable student housing, tribal housing and more. The bond is expected to help fund up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, while also helping another 40,000 households buy a home. The California Legislature put this measure on the ballot.
Support: California needs more money for housing in order to help the state’s more than 180,000 homeless residents, as well as those who pay more than they can afford in rent and those who can’t afford to purchase a home. Supporters include: California Democratic Party, Gov. Gavin Newsom, The California Apartment Association and AFL-CIO California.
Oppose: Some Republican legislators criticized the bill for using veterans to drum up support while actually doing little to serve them. They also questioned the wisdom of borrowing more money to pay for housing without addressing the underlying reasons it’s so expensive to build. Opponents include some Republican state lawmakers.
Proposition 2: Raise limit on rainy day fund deposits
This constitutional amendment would allow the state to deposit up to 20% of its general fund tax revenue in the state’s reserves, up from the current ceiling of 10%. The deposits would not count toward the voter-approved Gann Limit, which caps the amount state lawmakers can spend each year and requires excess funds to be returned to the people. It also authorizes spending some tax revenue to pay down California’s $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt. The California Legislature placed this measure on the ballot.
Support: California’s tax revenue is volatile and relies heavily on the stock market. Supporters say raising the ceiling would allow the state to save more when the economy is booming, building a stronger reserve for economic downturns. Supporters include: California Democratic Party, legislative Democrats and Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Oppose: Opponents say the state’s reserves can be used by politicians as a “slush fund,” and argue the measure would allow lawmakers to withhold more tax revenue without triggering the spending limit so as to avoid refunds to taxpayers. Opponents include Reform California and legislative Republicans.
Proposition 3: Make income taxes on higher earners permanent to fund education and health care
The tax, first enacted in 2012, is set to expire in 2031. Under the measure, income taxes for top earners range from 10.3% (for individual income over $360,000) to 12.3% (for individual income over $721,000), with graduated rates in between. Eighty-nine percent of the money goes to K-12 public schools and 11% goes to community colleges, with any excess going to public health care. The tax typically raises $5 billion to $15 billion a year — about 3% to 10% of overall K-12 spending. The California Teachers Association put this measure on the ballot.
Support: The tax has been a vital source of revenue for schools. Supporters say if Prop. 3 fails, the loss of up to $15 billion a year for schools will likely lead to layoffs, program cuts and other reductions. Supporters include California Teachers Association, California School Employees Association, California State PTA, California Democratic Party and California Medical Association.
Oppose: Opponents point out that California already has some of the highest income taxes in the country. They say the measure may spur wealthy Californians to leave for lower-tax states, taking jobs and revenue with them. Opponents include California Taxpayers Association and Reform California.
Proposition 4: Allow public financing of political campaigns
This would authorize California’s state and local governments to establish public campaign funds for candidates if they choose to. It would reverse a 1988 ban on such systems for the state and most local governments. Currently, only five California cities have public financing for local offices, including Berkeley and San Francisco. The California Legislature put this measure on the ballot.
Support: Advocates say public campaign financing helps curb the influence of private money in politics. They argue that public financing encourages candidates without significant financial backing to run and empowers small donors. Supporters include California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters and California Democratic Party.
Oppose: Opponents say the measure would force taxpayers to subsidize political candidates they may not want to support and could direct funding to fraudulent candidates. They argue that it is also expensive for state and local governments to establish the system. Opponents include California Taxpayers Association and Reform California.
Proposition 5: Delay replacing recalled state officials
Under current law, after choosing whether to recall an elected official, voters are asked who should replace them. This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by state lawmakers, would delay the election of a successor until a separate election. The recalled officer would be allowed to run in that election. If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over their duties until a new governor is elected. The California Legislature put this measure on the ballot.
Support: Proposition 5 is a constitutional amendment born out of a proposal from the secretary of state’s office following the unsuccessful recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021. Secretary of State Shirley Weber told lawmakers her office felt a recall election should focus on whether the elected official should be recalled, not whether other potential candidates would be better in the role. Democrat Josh Newman, who was successfully recalled from his state Senate seat in 2018, authored the measure, saying it would reduce the “political gamesmanship” that elevates candidates who otherwise wouldn’t receive a majority of votes. Supporters include California Common Cause, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters and Indivisible CA: StateStrong.
Oppose: Opponents including the California Republican Party and Election Integrity Project, which advocates for voter ID requirements and restrictions on mail-in voting, argue that allowing the lieutenant governor to assume the governor’s position if the governor were recalled would dissuade people from participating in a recall election. Almost all legislative Republicans also opposed it, arguing that it would dilute the power of voters while protecting incumbents. The current recall process is how former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, was first elected in 2003. Opponents include Election Integrity Project California Inc., California Republican Party and Reform California.
Proposition 37: Create low-cost mortgages for homebuyers
California’s Housing Finance Agency would be able (but not required) to borrow up to $25 billion to help would-be homebuyers purchase newly constructed houses and condos. These loans could provide up to 17% of a home’s purchase price, leaving buyers with a cash down payment of 3% if paired with a typical mortgage — $24,000 for an $800,000 home. Homebuyers would repay the loan in monthly installments to private lenders. Anyone earning up to twice the area’s median income would be eligible. Private lenders, not taxpayers, would be on the hook if homebuyers default. It was placed on the ballot by a coalition of real estate interests and labor unions.
Support: House hunters can expect to face a down payment equal to 20% of the value of a home. In California, where $700,000 for a fixer-upper is considered a steal in much of the state, that’s not feasible for most people. This loan program will put the dream of homeownership within reach of the middle class without costing taxpayers a dime. Supporters include California Democratic Party, Xavier Becerra, California Association of Realtors, California Conference of Carpenters and SEIU.
Oppose: Some opponents argue that state government should not be involved in the mortgage lending market and note that the measure won’t do much to address the underlying reasons that housing in California is so expensive. Others note that while it would help more people buy homes, it would only do so by allowing them to go into even deeper debt. Opponents include Reform California and League of Women Voters.
Proposition 38: Borrow $8.4 billion for immunology research
Proposition 38 would create an $8.4 billion bond largely to fund research into fighting cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s, plus other diseases that can be treated through immunotherapies. Half the money would go to a research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would be distributed to select public universities and nonprofits. Drugs created through this research would have to be discounted at 20% for Californians and 10% of any revenue from the drugs would go back to the state general fund. Philanthropist and medical inventor Gary Michelson put this measure on the ballot.
Support: Supporters say the potential for cures through immunotherapies is huge because most diseases involve the immune system. They say the funding is needed because the Trump administration has tried to cut funding for federal health science research. Supporters include American Association of Immunologists, California Democratic Party, City of Hope and Michelson Center for Public Policy.
Oppose: Critics fault the measure for focusing on just one subset of biomedical research rather than a wider array of health research. They also question whether the research that might emerge from this fund can produce commercial drugs, given how hard it is to get a drug approved and bring it to market. They also question why just one nonprofit stands to receive half the money and note that it will add $500 million to $600 million a year in debt payments for 20 years. Opponents include Robert Kaplan, senior scholar at Stanford; No on 38, led by California Health Policy Strategies; League of Women Voters; and Orange County Register Editorial Board.
Proposition 39: Require identification for voting
This initiative would require voters to show government-issued identification at the polls and order election officials to verify that all registered voters are U.S. citizens. Voters who cast a mail-in ballot would need to give the last four digits of a government ID, such as a driver’s license number. California currently requires residents to provide an identification card and Social Security number to register to vote, but does not request it at polling places. It was placed on the ballot by conservative groups.
Support: Supporters argue that ID requirements at voting sites will strengthen voters’ trust in California’s election process, and that most states require voters to show some form of identification to vote. Supporters include California Republican Party, Reform California and Uline CEO Richard Uihlein.
Oppose: Opponents say requiring ID will make it harder for eligible voters who don’t have a driver’s license or other supporting documents to vote. They say this will disproportionately affect those with disabilities, who are low-income or have recently moved. Opponents include American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, League of Women Voters and California Democratic Party.
Proposition 40: Apply one-time tax to billionaires to fund health care and education
Proposition 40 would require the estimated 200 Californians whose net worth exceeded $1 billion at the start of this year to pay a one-time 5% tax. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the group that put the measure on the ballot, projects that it would raise roughly $100 billion over five years. That money would be earmarked primarily for health care, with some reserved for food assistance and education. If propositions 41 or 42 earn more votes than Proposition 40, this measure would be nullified.
Support: Supporters argue that the people who would pay the tax are the ones who benefited the most financially from recent federal tax reforms. Congress also cut tens of billions from Medicaid, known as Medi-Cal in California, which provides health insurance to low-income people. SEIU-UHW argues those cuts will cause hospitals and clinics to close, costing thousands of jobs and worsening access for all patients. Supporters include: Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West; Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders; Teamsters California; AFSCME California; California Democratic Party; and, California Labor Federation.
Oppose: Opponents include Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, business interests, and some health and labor organizations. They say the proposal will backfire, causing billionaires to leave California and decreasing tax revenue in the long run. Health groups say they weren’t consulted in designing the measure and that it does not solve the long-term fiscal challenges of funding health care. The same groups backed propositions 41 and 42, competing measures that would place limits on new special taxes. Opponents include: California Business Roundtable; California Medical Association; California Teachers Association; Planned Parenthood; California Professional Firefighters; State Building and Construction Trades; Crypto executive Chris Larsen; and, Venture capitalist Ron Conway.
Proposition 41: Require audits of new tax programs
This proposition would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. The auditor would assess whether the program that would receive funding could cut spending by at least 10% annually. Any new special tax approved by voters would count toward California’s spending limit, potentially triggering automatic refunds that reduce funding for other state programs. If this proposition receives more votes than Proposition 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires), Proposition 40 is nullified, even if Proposition 40 also passes. It was placed on the ballot by opponents of the proposed billionaire tax.
Support: Supporters say key social programs are not getting enough funding despite California’s high taxes. They argue the state auditor should assess whether the programs that would benefit from special taxes are spending money wisely. Supporters also want these special taxes to count toward the state spending limit, making tax rebates to Californians more likely. Supporters include Reform California, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and Chairman and CEO of Wonderful Company foods Stewart Resnick.
Oppose: The chief opponent is SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsor of Proposition 40. The union argues that Prop. 41 is designed to trick voters into unknowingly blocking a wealth tax on billionaires. Prop. 41 isn’t about auditing waste in public programs, the union says; instead it’s a way for billionaires to avoid paying taxes once on their huge wealth. Opponents include SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and California Democratic Party.
Proposition 42: Ban new taxes on personal property
Proposition 42 would make it much harder to create a wealth tax in California by prohibiting new taxes on the mere ownership of assets such as investment accounts, business interests and personal property — assets that are typically only taxed when they are sold or generate income. Like Proposition 41, which also attempts to block Proposition 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires), Proposition 42 would nullify Proposition 40 if it receives more votes, even if the billionaire tax also passes. It was placed on the ballot by opponents of the proposed billionaire tax.
Support: The measure’s ultra-wealthy backers say California should not tax people for merely owning or controlling retirement accounts, financial portfolios, or valuable personal possessions like art. They want to prevent taxes on unrealized gains — paper wealth that hasn’t been sold or generated taxable revenue — warning that pensions and retirement accounts could one day be taxed on their future value. Supporters include: Reform California; Building a Better California; Google co-founder Sergey Brin; Peace Officers Research Association of California; California Professional Firefighters; and, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Oppose: The chief opponent is SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which is the sponsor of Prop. 40. The union argues that Prop. 42 is designed to trick voters into making it impossible to apply a wealth tax to billionaires. Prop. 42 isn’t about preventing new taxes on everyday people, the union says; instead, it’s a way for billionaires to avoid paying a one-time tax on their huge wealth. Opponents include SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and California Democratic Party.
Proposition 43: Raise vote threshold for special tax measures
This would make it harder to impose or increase local taxes by raising the threshold for local citizen-driven special tax ballot initiatives to pass from a simple majority to two-thirds. The two-thirds threshold already applies to taxes proposed by local governments but not by individuals. The measure reflects a deal between state lawmakers and the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to keep a more restrictive tax proposal off the ballot.
Support: Anti-tax advocates have championed similar policies for years, arguing that special interest groups have exploited the simple majority threshold during low-turnout elections to pass special taxes. Supporters include Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California.
Oppose: Opponents argue the measure would limit the ability to raise needed revenue for local services and make it easier for moneyed interests to block tax initiatives that the majority of voters support. Opponents include California Democratic Party and SEIU Local 1000.
Proposition 44: Require more clinic spending on patient care
Proposition 44 would require community clinics that serve low-income patients to spend 90% of their annual revenue on patient care. The measure directs the attorney general to publish guidance on what spending qualifies and allows the state to fine clinics that don’t spend the full 90%. The labor union Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West put it on the ballot after pushing a similar bill last year that failed. Clinics failed to keep the measure off the ballot with a lawsuit earlier this year.
Support: Supporters, led by the health workers union SEIU-UHW, argue that clinics should spend more on direct patient care and less on executive pay and overhead. With federal cuts under H.R. 1 — which is expected to leave many more uninsured — looming, supporters say it is especially critical for clinics to prioritize patient care now. Supporters include Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West.
Oppose: Opponents say the measure is unnecessary because community clinics are already heavily regulated by the state and federal governments. They say it would cost clinics more than $1.7 billion in noncompliance fees in the first year, ultimately forcing clinics to significantly reduce services or close. Opponents include: California Primary Care Association; California Medical Association; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California; California Hospital Association; and, California Democratic Party
Proposition 45: Speed up environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure
Proposition 45 would limit reviews under the state’s landmark environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act. Placed on the ballot by the California Chamber of Commerce, the measure aims to help developers advance projects they designate as “essential” more quickly and easily. It would impose a 365-day limit on environmental reviews for those projects, including infrastructure like roads and bridges, housing, schools, broadband and wildfire mitigation. It would also require courts to rule within 270 days on lawsuits related to the environmental review law.
Support: The California Chamber of Commerce says the state’s environmental review law is outdated and creates expensive bureaucracy and frivolous litigation that slows development. It argues that delays in reviewing projects ultimately increase costs that are passed down to taxpayers and consumers. The group argues the measure will speed up development while keeping essential environmental protections in place. Supporters include: 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 League of United Latin American Citizens; and, California Building Industry Association.
Oppose: Opponents say the measure would weaken California’s environmental review law, which exists to protect people and the environment from potentially harmful developments. They say Proposition 45 would strip agencies of the tools they have to protect communities, increase costly litigation and practically eliminate their ability to enforce the law. They argue the long-term costs of poor planning will be passed onto agencies and taxpayers. Opponents include: California Labor Federation; California Democratic Party; California Nurses Association; Western Center on Law & Poverty; California League of Women Voters; Californians Against Waste; Clean Water Action; Sierra Club California; Clean Air Coalition; and, National Wildlife Federation
