CPC’s 2026 Voter Information Guide
This November, California voters will make choices on a variety of candidates and ballot propositions that could shape the state for years to come.
Our election guide is designed to help Californians make informed decisions by providing an overview of the statewide propositions, the arguments surrounding them, and California Policy Center’s take on the choices facing voters this November.
As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, CPC does not endorse a particular candidate, party, or ballot measure. CPC recommends that voters independently evaluate the propositions on their ballots to determine what aligns with their own political preferences and values.
Proposition 1 — $11.25 Billion “Veterans” and Affordable Housing Bond Gives Just $1.25 Billion to Veterans
Like Proposition 37 (below), Proposition 1 increases demand for housing without meaningfully increasing the supply of housing. More dollars chasing a constrained housing market will lead to inflation — and make housing even less affordable.
Proposition 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds, $10 billion of which would finance affordable housing and homeownership programs. A relatively meager $1.25 billion would be used for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for some veterans. $1 billion of the borrowed money would go to tribes and housing for farmworkers and college students. The bulk of the money would flow into government programs that subsidize construction and homeownership for a small fraction of Californians, but do little to address the regulatory barriers driving California’s housing shortage. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it will cost $500 to $600 million per year for about 25 years to repay the bond.
Supporters argue that several of the state’s affordable housing programs have exhausted their funding and that California has a long history of voters approving similar veterans’ and housing bonds — so why stop spending now? Supporters include Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the California Housing Consortium, and League of California Cities.
Opponents argue that Proposition 1 uses expensive state borrowing — with principal and interest payments, that initial $11.25 billion we borrow will cost upwards of $25 billion to repay — to subsidize a relatively small number of homes without doing anything to meaningfully expand the supply of housing. Increasing the demand for housing through home ownership assistance without increasing its supply will further drive up the cost of housing in the nation’s most expensive housing markets. Opponents include state Assemblymember David Tangipa and Reform California.
CPC’s Take: NO
Prop. 1 commits California to decades of massive debt payments for piecemeal housing subsidies while leaving the regulatory and development restrictions constraining the state’s housing supply unchanged. Voters concerned about increased government debt, higher taxes and inflation are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 2 — Doubles the State’s “Rainy Day Fund” and Lets Sacramento Sidestep Constitutional Spending Limits
Increases the slush fund that Sacramento uses to finance such exotic programs as healthcare for illegal immigrants.
Proposition 2 would raise the cap on the state’s Budget Stabilization Account — commonly called the rainy day fund — from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax revenue. It would also exclude deposits into that account from the state’s constitutional spending limit (known as the Gann Limit, which voters established through Proposition 4 in 1979). This means that, if Proposition 2 is approved by voters, the state will have a larger rainy day fund, and that the Gann limit would not apply to spending from that account.
Supporters argue that a larger reserve helps the state absorb the swings in revenue that come from relying heavily on income and capital-gains taxes paid by high earners. Supporters include Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party.
Opponents argue that the enactment of the Gann Limit was designed specifically to force the government to return excess revenue to taxpayers or schools rather than retain it, and that exempting rainy day deposits from that calculation loosens one of the state’s few constraints on the growth of government spending. Opponents include the California Republican Party, State Assemblyman Joe Patterson and Reform California.
CPC’s Take: NO
“Saving money” always sounds great until you learn that the “savings account” is commonly used to expand government — not to help California weather such unpredictable financial storms as the Great Recession or Covid. In eight years, Gov. Gavin Newsom has nearly doubled state spending. During that time, he dipped into California’s principal rainy-day fund in three fiscal years, withdrawing roughly $20 billion, even as the state maintained multibillion-dollar commitments, such as its expansion of full-scope Medi-Cal to undocumented residents.
Voters who oppose giving Sacramento more ways to sidestep constitutional spending limits are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 3 — Makes the “Temporary” Income Tax Hike on High Earners Permanent
An “emergency” tax hike meant to address the emergency of the Great Recession will now become permanent.
Proposition 3 would make permanent the additional income tax on high earners in California that was established by Proposition 30 in 2012, and later extended through Proposition 55 in 2016. The tax is currently set to expire in 2031. The tax applies to single filers earning at least $361,000 and joint filers earning roughly $721,000. Revenue generated by the tax would be split, with 89% allocated to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
Supporters argue that making the tax permanent would guarantee schools long-term budget certainty instead of facing recurring expiration fights. The California Teachers Association is a lead supporter of Proposition 3. The California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Association, and California Democratic Party also support the measure.
Opponents argue that voters were told in 2012 — and again in 2016 — that the tax was temporary, necessary only to help California weather the Great Recession. In that time, it has been one of the factors driving high-income earners to leave California. Ironically, it turns out that raising taxes can actually lower tax revenue. Opponents include the California Taxpayers Association, California Republican Party and Reform California.
CPC’s Take: NO
Proposition 3 is proof of economist Milton Friedman’s observation that “there’s nothing so permanent as a temporary government program.” If you believe that the California Teachers Association and its hundreds of local members need more money to educate far fewer students; that the 40% of the general revenue they are already granted is too modest; and if you aren’t concerned about wealthy Californians departing the state to avoid this tax (as well as the one proposed under Prop. 40), you’ll love this initiative. On the other hand, voters who prioritize tax stability and oppose tax increases are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 4 — Allows Public Financing of Election Campaigns
Allows the state and local governments to get into the business of spending taxpayer dollars to fund political activity.
Proposition 4 would allow the state government and local governments to establish programs that provide candidates with public funds under expenditure limits and eligibility criteria. Under current law, public financing of political campaigns for most public offices is prohibited, with the exception of some local offices in charter cities. Proposition 4 would also require state and local governments to establish spending limits and eligibility criteria if they administer these programs. Five California cities — Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco — already operate such programs.
Supporters point to these cities’ programs as evidence the concept is workable. Supporters include the California Democratic Party and ACLU of California.
Opponents argue that people who pay taxes want that money to fund schools, fire departments, libraries, and roads, not political ads and campaigns. Opponents include the California Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Party and Reform California.
CPC’s Take: NO
Voters who prioritize using public tax dollars for essential government services rather than for political campaigns are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 5 — Removes Voters’ Right to Choose a Recall Replacement on the Same Ballot
Guts California’s recall process by taking the replacement choice away from voters and shifting control over the vacancy to Sacramento.
Proposition 5 would change how a recalled elected official is replaced. For 115 years, California voters have had the right to recall state officials and, where the recall is successful, to replace those state officials with a candidate chosen by the same voters. Proposition 5 would eliminate the “replace” provision. If Proposition 5 passes, the office of a recalled official would be filled “in accordance with this Constitution and statute” until the next election. In most cases, that means the seat would be filled by the governor’s appointment and legislature’s confirmation. However, in the case of a recalled state legislator, the Legislative Analyst’s Office says that “a replacement typically would be elected through a separate special election.” In the case of a recalled governor, the term would be completed by the lieutenant governor. The proposition would also allow the recalled official to run for the office again if a special election is held, but they may not be appointed.
Supporters and the proposition’s authors in the legislature say that the current system gives bad actors an incentive to target officials they disagree with, replacing them with a candidate who may not command majority support in a special election. Supporters include the California Democratic Party, California Common Cause, and League of Women Voters of California.
Opponents argue that the state’s 115-year-old process gives voters an immediate, direct say in choosing a replacement when they vote to remove an official, and that the proposition would hand that power to the political establishment. Opponents include Election Integrity Project California, Inc., the California Republican Party and Reform California.
CPC’s Take: NO
Voters who value public accountability and direct voter control over elected officials are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 37 — $25 Billion State-Run Mortgage Finance Experiment
Like Proposition 1, Proposition 37 increases demand for housing without increasing the supply of housing. More dollars chasing a constrained housing market will lead to inflation, making housing less affordable.
Also known as the Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act, this proposition would authorize the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund a fixed-rate mortgage program for homebuyers. To be eligible, the homebuyer must be a California resident of at least one year, earn no more than 200 percent of the area median income, and provide a three percent or greater down payment. The loan would cover up to 17 percent of the home cost. The proposition stipulates that homes qualified for the program would be newly constructed, or a building repurposed for residential use where the homebuyer is the first residential owner. Buyers would need to secure a first mortgage for the remainder that the program does not cover.
Supporters say the measure will expand the middle-class housing supply and help buyers clear the down-payment hurdle. Supporters include the California Democratic Party and the California Association of Realtors.
Opponents say the government should stay out of the mortgage lending market, and that Proposition 37 will drive up the prices of homes rather than making them more affordable. They also point out the risk that the program’s success is dependent on CalHFA correctly pricing loans to cover its own costs over time. Taxpayer advocates point out that any default on the loan, should the state be unable to pay the bond investors back, would result in California taxpayers being on the hook. Opponents include Reform California.
CPC’s Take: NO
Voters who oppose expanding government intervention into private financial markets are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 38 — $8.4 Billion General Fund Debt to Fund Immunology Research
Once more, California government officials think they’re smarter than complex markets.
This initiative would authorize $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research, and establish a research institute affiliated with the University of California. At least $4.2 billion would be allocated toward cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s research. The proposition states that administrative costs would be capped at 2 percent. It also stipulates that the first ten percent of the revenue generated from the research’s results must go to the state’s General Fund until the bond cost is repaid.
Supporters say the measure was designed with fiscal accountability in mind, and point to the potential public-health payoff and public-private partnership. Supporters include the California Democratic Party, the Alzheimer’s Association, and Reform California.
Opponents argue that borrowing (i.e. taking on taxpayer-funded debt) should not fund scientific research, especially because there’s no guarantee that marketable treatments will result. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on research that goes nowhere in the hunt for drugs that alleviate suffering. California’s history in this sort of practice has been a signal failure — consider 2004 stem cell research which has earned approximately $16 million in revenue from an investment of $6 billion from taxpayers. Because the measure requires any resulting therapies be sold at discounted prices in California, opponents also argue that companies may prioritize selling treatments in other states.
CPC’s Take: NO
Voters who prioritize fiscal discipline and want to limit multi-decade general obligation bond debt are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 39 — Voter ID, Citizenship Verification, and Voter Roll Maintenance
Americans are required to show ID to purchase alcohol, to rent a car, to cash a check, pick up a prescription, purchase cigarettes, enter a court house, start a new job, apply for a marriage license, check into a hotel, open a bank account, or buy a gun. Why not require ID to vote?
This measure would require voters to present a government-issued ID for in-person voting (or the last four digits of a government-issued ID to vote by mail). It would also require election officials to maintain “accurate voter registration lists” and report percentages of citizenship-verified voters, and require the State Auditor to audit compliance with these requirements. Currently when registering to vote in California, voters attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury.
Supporters argue that the requirements would strengthen trust in the election process, and that most states (and democracies worldwide) require citizenship verification to vote. Supporters include the California Republican Party and Reform California.
Opponents say that the requirement will disproportionately impact low-income voters, voters with disabilities, or voters who have recently moved. Opponents include the American Civil Liberties Union, California Democratic Party, and League of Women Voters.
CPC’s Take: YES
California’s political establishment is doing its best to tank Proposition 39. Attorney General Rob Bonta has participated in that effort, using (or abusing) his authority to change the ballot title from the very fair “Establishes Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements” to the alarming “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification.” The opponents’ claim — that this measure will frustrate “low-income voters” because they don’t know how to acquire ID — is the worst form of bigotry. Voters who prioritize election security are likely to support this measure.
Proposition 40 — “One-time” Billionaire Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food Assistance Programs
If it passes, the wealth tax will make California poorer.
Proposition 40 says it would institute a one-time 5% tax on taxpayers and trusts with global assets valued over $1 billion if they were a California resident on January 1, 2026. The value of both tangible and intangible property and wealth, including stocks, bonds, and “legal or equitable interest” would be taxable under the measure. The Legislative Analyst’s Office writes that real estate and retirement accounts would generally be excluded from the tax, although real estate’s protected status (which is due to Proposition 13) only refers to a primary residence. The proposition provides for the establishment of the “2026 Billionaire Tax Reserve Fund,” where the revenue would be directed into sub-accounts to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance programs.
Supporters argue that federal cuts to Medicaid necessitate the taxes and that only the ultra-wealthy would be affected. Supporters include SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (the measure’s sponsor), the California Democratic Party, AFSCME California, California Democratic Socialists of America.
Opponents point out that while advertised as a one-time tax, there is no language in the ballot measure limiting the tax to one time — and that the state legislature may, at its discretion, impose this tax again (and again) and increase the percentage of the tax — from 5%, for example, to 10% or almost anything. The legislature could also reduce the threshold of the wealth one must have to be taxed under this proposition, meaning that multimillionaires are in the crosshairs when billionaires wealth doesn’t quench the legislature’s insatiable thirst for money. They also note that assessing the value of both global holdings — intangible and tangible wealth — is administratively difficult, and that it will cause (has already caused) billionaires to leave California, eroding the tax base and hurting revenue long-term. While the initiative’s backers estimate the tax would bring in $100 billion or more, Hoover Institution economists say the measure is likely to lose the state $25 billion. Because of that, opponents include Governor Gavin Newsom, gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, California Professional Firefighters, the California Teachers Association, California Business Roundtable, California Housing Consortium, and Reform California.
CPC’s Take: NO
Voters who favor keeping taxes low and preserving the state’s tax base are likely to oppose the measure.
Proposition 41 — Independent Pre-Election Audits, State Spending-Limit Protections, and Countering the Wealth Tax
The anti-Prop 40 proposition.
Prohibits new state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 from exempting their revenues from California’s constitutional spending limit, called the Gann limit — including taxes appearing on the same ballot. Requires a pre-election audit of programs proposed to receive money from statewide initiative special taxes. Requires recurring audits every four years of programs funded by new state special taxes. Because Proposition 40 exempts its billionaire-tax revenue from the Gann Limit, Proposition 41 could prevent Proposition 40 from taking effect if both measures pass.
Supporters argue that requiring independent pre-election audits and recurring four-year reviews gives voters a clear, unbiased look at how their tax dollars are spent, and prevents state lawmakers and initiative campaigns from bypassing the constitutional spending limit (the Gann Limit). Supporters include Google co-founder Sergey Brin, the California Republican Party and Reform California.
Opponents, largely tied to labor unions sponsoring Proposition 40, view Proposition 41 as a tactical “poison pill” designed to neutralize a one-time wealth tax on billionaires. Opponents include the California Democratic Party and SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.
CPC’s Take: YES
California voters approved the Gann Limit to restrain the growth of government spending and require excess revenues to be returned to taxpayers or directed to schools — rather than simply allowing lawmakers to spend more when tax revenues surge. Voters who value independent audits of the programs funded by new taxes before elections, and believe new tax revenues should remain subject to California’s constitutional spending limit, are likely to support this measure.
Proposition 42 — Constitutional Protections Against Wealth and Retroactive Taxation
This protects retirement savings and personal assets from new or retroactive taxation — like the “one-time” wealth tax, Proposition 40.
Proposition 42 is the anti-Prop 40 measure. If passed, it would amend the state constitution to prohibit new state taxes (like Proposition 40, above) from being enacted after January 1, 2026 on the ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually owned assets, and other forms of personal savings. It would also prohibit retroactive taxes. This prevents new tax rates on 401(k)s, IRAs, mutual funds, business interests, digital assets, and intellectual property. The measure includes exceptions allowing the Legislature to enact time-limited emergency taxes during a declared physical or fiscal crisis, provided the revenues are restricted exclusively to emergency response. Proposition 42 serves as a direct countermeasure to Proposition 40, and if both pass, the measure with the higher number of “Yes” votes prevails.
Supporters argue that taxing past activity or reaching into retirement savings is unfair to taxpayers and undermines long-term financial planning. Supporters include Reform California, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, the California Republican Party and California Professional Firefighters.
Opponents contend the measure creates a barrier to taxing extreme wealth. Opponents include the California Democratic Party and SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.
CPC’s Take: YES
Voters who value protecting their retirement savings and personal assets from new or retroactive taxation are likely to support this measure.
Proposition 43 — Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives
Closes a loophole that allows local government unions to raise taxes without complying with Proposition 13.
Proposition 43 would require local special taxes proposed through “voter-initiated” ballot initiatives to secure two-thirds voter approval at the ballot box in order to pass. This closes a legal gap established by a 2017 California Supreme Court ruling that allowed citizen-initiated special taxes to pass with a simple majority. The measure also prohibits local governments and voter initiatives from imposing new ad valorem property taxes — taxes calculated as a percentage of a property’s assessed value — above Proposition 13’s one percent base rate.
Supporters argue that the two-thirds standard for new taxes should apply to local tax hikes, so that special interests and a simple majority of voters (51 percent) cannot impose a new tax over the objections of a simple minority (the other 49 percent of the electorate). Supporters include the California Republican Party, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Reform California.
Opponents contend the measure makes it significantly harder for local communities to raise needed revenue for public services — which is, of course, the point. Opponents include the California Democratic Party, California Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers, and SEIU Local 1000.
CPC’s Take: YES
Voters who believe Proposition 13’s two-thirds voter approval requirement should apply to all local special taxes are likely to support this measure.
Proposition 44 — SEIU-Imposed Spending Mandates for Federally Qualified Health Centers
Brought to you by SEIU-UHW, the same people behind the wealth tax, this measure would require health centers to hire more people than they need — creating potential new members of SEIU while raising the cost of already expensive healthcare.
Proposition 44 would require federally qualified nonprofit health centers (“safety net” clinics that serve low-income and medically underserved patients) to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on providing health care services. The California Attorney General’s Office would develop criteria for what expenses qualify for the requirement. Clinics that fall short would face a state penalty equal to the shortfall, paid into a new fund the legislature could direct toward clinical worker training and retention. The measure is sponsored and funded almost entirely by SEIU-UHW West.
Supporters argue that the measure would hold health clinics and their executives accountable. Supporters include SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.
Opponents say a one-size-fits-all spending requirement imposed by statute doesn’t account for the fact that transportation services, community screening, and patient outreach are often what get underserved patients through the door, and classifying that support as “overhead” risks penalizing clinics for the services that make them effective (accounting, compliance, and capital expenses). Opponents include the California Medical Association, the California Democratic Party, California Republican Party, the California Teachers Association, Reform California, California Chamber of Commerce, and California Hospital Association.
CPC’s Take: NO
Voters who oppose a union-backed effort to impose rigid spending mandates on private nonprofit health clinics — and in turn pressure clinics to create more union jobs — are likely to oppose this measure.
Proposition 45 — Expedited CEQA Review for Housing and Essential Infrastructure
Increases the supply of housing by reforming the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act CEQA, one of the state’s most notorious barriers to new home construction.
Proposition 45 amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Permit Streamlining Act to shorten environmental review timelines for a defined set of “essential” projects, including most housing, energy (excluding nuclear energy), transportation (excluding high-speed rail), water (excluding Delta conveyance facilities), and health facility projects. Under the measure, agencies would have 30 days to determine if an application is complete. If the agency fails to make a determination in that timeframe, the application would be automatically deemed complete. Public comment periods on environmental impact reports would be capped at 45 days.
Supporters argue this necessary reform prevents CEQA review from being weaponized as an indefinite veto against needed housing and energy projects. Supporters include the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Hospital Association, California Wind Energy Association, and California Housing Consortium.
Opponents contend that shorter review windows and narrowed project alternatives weaken community oversight. Opponents include Sierra Club California, Communities for a Better Environment, Clean Air Coalition, and California Democratic Party.
CPC’s Take: YES
Voters who believe CEQA desperately needs reform — because it has become a tool used by environmental litigants and activists to block the construction of housing and essential infrastructure California desperately needs — are likely to support this measure.
WATCH: Housing, Wealth Tax and More: What’s in California’s 2026 Ballot Measures? | Will Swaim
LISTEN: Newsom’s ‘Zen Diagram’ | Radio Free California