November 2026 ballot measures

The goal of this page is to set out the parts of each measure that are hard to judge from the title alone, so a reader can weigh what California voters create for the people who come next.

Dollar lines are top-contributor amounts on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list in the donor sheet, not full campaign totals. An asterisk marks a multi-measure committee. Do not add that committee’s dollars onto another proposition. Do not add the Proposition 40, 41, and 42 dollar figures into one pile.

Official arguments below are pages that returned a normal response on October 3, 2026. Campaign links are the Yes and No addresses printed in the Secretary of State Quick Guide to Propositions for November 3, 2026, and each one listed here also returned a normal response that day. Where the Quick Guide prints no website, this card does not invent one.

Proposition 19 (2020) — the example

Title. The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act.

Passed November 3, 2020, 51.11% Yes / 48.89% No.

Sell. Campaign mailers said the measure would protect the family home and help seniors, severely disabled people, and wildfire or natural-disaster victims move, without a tax increase.

Not promoted. Starting February 16, 2021, the old parent-child exclusion was narrowed. Inherited rentals, second homes, and vacant houses generally were reassessed to market value.

Analyst. Narrowing the inheritance rule raises property taxes. The help for people who move lowers some bills. On net, local property-tax revenue probably increases.

Who funded. Yes: about $47.6 million, of which the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC was about $40.4 million. No: about $240,000.

Official arguments.

November 3, 2026

Proposition 1

Title. Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute.

Sell. The official summary says the measure authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance.

Not promoted. The Analyst separates that amount into a $10 billion bond for state housing programs, repaid by the General Fund, and a $1.25 billion veterans’ home-loan bond, repaid by participating veterans. Of the $10 billion, $7.2 billion is for affordable multifamily rental housing.

Analyst. The General Fund cost to repay the $10 billion housing bond would be $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years, about one-quarter of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. The veterans’ home-loan program has no direct state cost, because participating veterans’ payments repay those bonds.

Who funded. Yes: about $7.0 million. Named on the sheet: Airbnb $1.0 million; Western States Carpenters Issues $1.0 million; Building a Better California $1.0 million; NPH Action Fund Yes on 1 $700,000; Pacific West Communities $500,000; and, on a separate NPH-sponsored committee, NPH Action Fund PIC about $755,000, Scott Cook $150,000, and H. Signe Ostby $150,000. These named amounts are the sheet’s listed contributors, not a second total to add to the $7.0 million. No: no primarily formed committee at the $1 million line on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list.

Official arguments.

Proposition 2

Title. Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Sell. The official summary says the measure increases California’s Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns.

Not promoted. Deposits into the rainy day fund would be required until the balance reaches 20 percent of General Fund taxes, instead of 10 percent. Extra debt payments would be required through 2040 instead of through 2030, and could also be used for required school and community-college payments, repayment of borrowing from other state funds, and certain federal loans. Deposits into the rainy day fund would not count toward the state appropriations limit until the money is taken out. The same would be true of deposits into the state’s account for setting aside funds when revenues are surging, and that exclusion could not be larger than 10 percent of General Fund taxes in a year.

Analyst. Budget reserves would be higher, and the state might make more extra debt payments than it would without the measure. The net effect is not stated as a number.

Who funded. No committee at the $1 million line on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list.

Official arguments.

Proposition 3

Title. Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Sell. The official summary says the measure makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000, adjusted annually for inflation, and allocates the tax revenues to public education. Those rates otherwise expire in 2031.

Not promoted. The official summary says the revenues are allocated to public education. The Analyst’s fiscal section says roughly 40 percent of the funding would go to schools and community colleges, the rest would go to other state programs, and part of that amount would be set aside in budget reserves. The measure does not create a new rate. It keeps temporary rates that otherwise expire in 2031.

Analyst. The amount would vary from year to year. In a weak year it might bring in around $5 billion; in a strong year, $15 billion; in most years, something in between. The official summary states the same range as maintaining $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue.

Who funded. Yes: about $49.3 million*, of which the California Teachers Association Issues PAC is about $33.3 million. Also named on the sheet: NEA (MPO) $7.5 million; CSEA PACE Issues $2.6 million; CFT COPE Prop/Ballot $1.75 million; SEIU California State Council for Working People $1.5 million. * Do not add this committee’s dollars onto another proposition. No: no primarily formed committee at the $1 million line on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list.

Official arguments.

Proposition 4

Title. Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.

Sell. The official summary says the measure repeals the prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns, and that public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.

Not promoted. The measure does not create or fund a public campaign-finance program. It allows state and local governments to create programs later, within rules on which public funds may be used, who may receive them, and how they may be spent. The existing ban already does not apply to city-office elections in certain charter cities. The Analyst names Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland, and Berkeley as current examples.

Analyst. The cost of any future programs could be significant and would depend on which governments created them and how they were designed. Separate from that, state costs for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions about such programs would be a few hundred thousand dollars each year.

Who funded. No committee at the $1 million line on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list.

Official arguments.

Proposition 5

Title. Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Sell. The official summary says that under current law voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election, and that this measure instead fills recall vacancies by a later special election or by appointment.

Not promoted. The recall ballot would no longer ask who should replace the official. If the Governor is recalled before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the term, the Lieutenant Governor serves until voters elect a new Governor. If the Governor is recalled later, the Lieutenant Governor serves the rest of the term. A recalled legislative seat typically would be filled by a separate special election. The Governor would appoint a replacement for other recalled state offices.

Analyst. The net fiscal effect is unknown because it depends on future recalls and which offices are recalled. The Analyst says savings or costs could be in the range of millions of dollars to administer a recall election, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. How any savings or costs would be shared by the state and counties would depend on later decisions by the Legislature.

Who funded. No committee at the $1 million line on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list.

Official arguments.

Proposition 37

Title. Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute.

Sell. The official summary says the measure authorizes $25 billion in bonds for fixed-rate mortgages of up to 17 percent of the purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3 percent down. The bonds are repaid by mortgage payments, not by the State.

Not promoted. The Analyst says the buyer must be the first purchaser of the home, and household income may be no more than double the typical income in the area. These are revenue bonds, not General Fund bonds. The measure does not create a loan for an existing home the buyer is not the first purchaser of. A developer may choose a “qualified builder option” that requires higher labor standards and applies different construction-defect rules.

Analyst. Because homebuyers’ payments repay the bond investors, the measure would not result in direct state or local costs. The Analyst gives no other dollar figure for a net fiscal effect.

Who funded. Yes: about $29.6 million. Named on the sheet: Homeownership for Families $14.85 million; Building a Better California $6 million; California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC $5 million and the National Association of Realtors $2 million into the Homeownership for Families vehicle; UBCJA $800,000; Carpenters issues PACs $450,000 each. These named amounts are the sheet’s listed contributors, not a second total to add to the $29.6 million. No: no primarily formed committee at the $1 million line on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list.

Official arguments.

Proposition 38

Title. Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.

Sell. The official summary says the measure authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute and half to research grants.

Not promoted. At least $4.2 billion of the bond funds must be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. The Department of Public Health selects the institute, which must meet criteria that include collaboration with a University of California campus. A treatment developed through the funded research and sold in California must generally be offered at a 20 percent discount.

Analyst. The bonds are repaid from the state General Fund. The General Fund cost would be about $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, about one-quarter of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. Ten percent of the revenue from a funded discovery is paid to the state and used first to repay the bond. The Analyst says that money could offset some or all of the annual cost. The amount and the timing are uncertain.

Who funded. Yes: about $48.2 million. Named on the sheet: Michelson Center Yes on 38 (c4) $13 million, with Gary K. Michelson as its top donor; Gary Michelson or an affiliated source $8.2 million; Meyer Luskin $5 million; and, on a separate Michelson Center vehicle, Gary Michelson $10 million. These named amounts are the sheet’s listed contributors, not a second total to add to the $48.2 million. No: no primarily formed committee at the $1 million line on the September 30, 2026 FPPC list.

Official arguments.

Proposition 39

Title. Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Sell. The official summary says the measure invalidates mail ballots that do not have the last four digits of a designated government-issued identification number written on the envelope, and prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.

Not promoted. The measure also requires state and local elections officials to make “best efforts,” using government data, to verify that voters on the rolls are U.S. citizens, and to report every year the percentage of registered voters in each county whose citizenship status has been verified. The state must provide a voter identification card at no cost to a voter who requests one. The Legislature must pass further laws to implement the measure, including which forms of identification may be used and what counts as best efforts. In every odd-numbered year the State Auditor must report on state and county compliance.

Analyst. State and local costs would increase each year by tens of millions of dollars to low hundreds of millions of dollars, less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. The exact cost depends on later choices. Savings from fewer people registered to vote are possible, and the Analyst says those savings likely would not exceed the costs.

Who funded. Yes: about $22.0 million, of which Richard Uihlein is $17.0 million. Also named on the sheet: Reform California with Carl DeMaio about $3.10 million; Nicole Shanahan $370,000; Douglas Leone $250,000; Stark Industrial $250,000; Cameron Winklevoss $250,000; Tyler Winklevoss $250,000; Word & Brown $230,000. No: about $16.0 million*. Named on the sheet: Graton Rancheria Tribal Council $2.0 million; Quillin $1.5 million; Delaney $1.5 million; SEIU California about $1.02 million; California Democratic Party about $1.00 million; Reed Hastings $1.0 million; Dignity/SEIU Local 2015 $1.0 million. The sheet also lists trades at $500,000 each without naming each trade on that line. * Do not add this committee’s dollars onto another proposition.

Official arguments.

Proposition 40

Title. Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Sell. A one-time tax of up to 5 percent on covered assets over $1 billion. Most of the money is for health care. The rest is for food assistance or education. The text says the revenue cannot replace existing funding for those purposes.

Not promoted. The same official summary exempts that revenue from the constitutional rules for school funding, budget reserves, and the state spending limit.

Analyst. If some billionaires leave, the income tax they pay now leaves with them. The estimate is less than $1 billion a year.

Who funded. Yes: SEIU-UHW, about $32.1 million*. The donor sheet and the Quick Guide name Suzanne Jimenez with that committee. The sheet splits the SEIU-UHW vehicles as about $22.05 million (nonprofit), about $7.50 million (Political Issues Committee), and $2.0 million (PAC). * Do not add this committee’s dollars onto another proposition. No: about $84.2 million opposing, of which Building a Better California is about $73.5 million. The donor sheet names Sergey Brin and L. John Doerr III as the top funders of Building a Better California. Also named on the No side: Ripple Labs $5 million, Chris Larsen $5 million, and California Business Roundtable Issues $450,000. Do not add the Proposition 40, 41, and 42 dollar figures into one pile.

Official arguments.

Proposition 41

Title. Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Sell. The official title and summary cover audits of new state special taxes and a bar on new state taxes that leave their revenue out of the state spending limit.

Not promoted. The prohibition applies to new state taxes after January 1, 2026, including taxes on the same ballot.

Analyst. The state might not be able to exclude new special-tax spending from the spending limit. That is the opposite of Proposition 40. The net fiscal effect is unknown. Audit costs would likely be in the low millions of dollars a year.

Who funded. Yes: Building a Better California, about $58.4 million. The donor sheet names Sergey Brin and L. John Doerr III as the top funders of that committee. No: the same SEIU-UHW committee as Yes on Proposition 40, about $32.1 million*. The Quick Guide names Suzanne Jimenez with that committee. * Do not add this committee’s dollars onto another proposition. Do not add the Proposition 40, 41, and 42 dollar figures into one pile.

Official arguments.

Proposition 42

Title. Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Sell. A ban on new state taxes on personal property, including retirement accounts and financial assets, and a limit on certain retroactive state taxes.

Not promoted. The ban covers new state taxes, including measures on the same ballot, on ownership or control of personal property — retirement accounts, financial assets, business interests, and intellectual property — and certain retroactive taxes, with limited exceptions stated in the measure.

Analyst. New taxes on owning financial assets or other personal property would not be allowed. Future revenue could be lower. When, and by how much, is unclear.

Who funded. Yes: Building a Better California, about $89.8 million. The donor sheet names Sergey Brin and L. John Doerr III as the top funders of that committee. No: the same SEIU-UHW committee as Yes on Proposition 40, about $32.1 million*. The Quick Guide names Suzanne Jimenez with that committee. * Do not add this committee’s dollars onto another proposition. Do not add the Proposition 40, 41, and 42 dollar figures into one pile.

Official arguments.

Proposition 43

Title. Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Sell. The official summary says the measure limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the votes needed to approve those ballot measures from a majority (over 50 percent) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027.

Not promoted. The Analyst says that under current law, local special taxes require a two-thirds vote, and that recent court decisions have allowed special taxes proposed by voters to pass with a majority. The new two-thirds rule applies to any new, increased, or extended local special tax proposed by voters. The proposal section does not state a new vote rule for taxes placed on the ballot by a local governing board.

Analyst. Local government tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be, because certain taxes would be harder to pass. The actual revenue impact is unknown and would depend on future decisions by local governments and voters. The net effect is not stated as a number.

Who funded. Yes: about $14.0 million. Named on the sheet: California Business Roundtable Issues PAC $9.85 million (the sheet names Peter Thiel and Kim DeGeorge as top funders of that PAC); Protect Prop 13, a Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association project, about $1.04 million; Kilroy Realty $1.0 million; Douglas Emmett $1.0 million; Ace Beverage/1800 Capital $500,000. No: about $5.3 million*. Named on the sheet: SEIU California $1.5 million; SEIU 1021 $500,000; SEIU 721 $500,000; Carpenters $500,000; CPF about $251,000; OE3 $250,000; CFT $250,000; League of California Cities CITIPAC about $100,000. * Do not add this committee’s dollars onto another proposition.

Official arguments.

Proposition 44

Title. Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.

Sell. The official summary says the measure imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers that spend less than 90 percent of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services.

Not promoted. The requirement applies to private nonprofit safety-net clinics, not to clinics run by public entities. The Attorney General would define which expenses count as providing health care and which count as other expenses, using existing federal reports as a starting point. Other expenses, such as administrative costs, would be limited to no more than 10 percent of revenue. A clinic that falls short pays the state the amount needed to reach 90 percent, and can get that money back if it complies within five years. If it does not, the state keeps the money for clinic workforce programs. A clinic may ask for a temporary waiver in some cases.

Analyst. State enforcement costs would be in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, and the measure directs the state to cover those costs by charging fees on affected clinics. Other state and local costs are uncertain and are not stated as a net number. They depend on how the Attorney General defines health-care expenses and on whether clinics meet the minimum or close.

Who funded. Yes: about $16.9 million*, from the SEIU-UHW Political Issues Committee (about $16.93 million on the sheet). * Do not add this committee’s dollars onto another proposition. No: about $16.7 million from clinic operators. Named on the sheet, through Protect Patients, sponsored by California Primary Care Association Advocates: AltaMed about $5.47 million; CPCA Advocates or an affiliate about $2.04 million; Family Health Centers of San Diego about $1.51 million; Wellspace $1.5 million; NEMS $1.5 million; San Ysidro Health about $1.00 million; TrueCare $1.0 million; Innercare $1.0 million.

Official arguments.

Proposition 45

Title. Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.

Sell. The official summary says the measure amends the California Environmental Quality Act to expedite environmental review for certain projects, including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects, by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and to resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals.

Not promoted. The new procedures apply only to projects the measure defines as “essential,” and an eligible applicant may use the new procedures or the existing ones. For those projects, the applicant may develop only one project alternative for the agency to consider. Consultation is required only with California native tribes formally recognized by the federal government. Public comment periods would have a maximum length. If a court finds that the agency did not follow the Act correctly, the court can stop only the part of the project where the review did not comply, while the agency fixes that part, and cannot stop the whole project.

Analyst. During the first several years, state and local costs, including state courts, likely would be in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially exceeding $100 million annually, with fees covering some of the cost. In the longer term the overall fiscal effect, positive or negative, is uncertain and could be more substantial than the near-term costs. The long-term net effect is not stated as a number.

Who funded. Yes: about $30.4 million. Named with amounts on the sheet: Building a Better California $10 million; CBIA Issues Committee $5.65 million; CBIA $2.25 million; CalChamber Non-Donor Funds $2.0 million; Edison International $2.0 million; California Association of Realtors $1.5 million; California Business PAC $1.35 million. The sheet also names, on a separate CBIA committee supporting Proposition 45, regional builder associations and Lennar, Five Point, KB, Tri Pointe, D.R. Horton, Toll Brothers, and Taylor Morrison, without a separate dollar for each on the line used here. No: about $22.1 million. Named with amounts on the sheet: Clean and Healthy California about $7.08 million; Wendy Schmidt $5.0 million; State Building Trades Members’ Voice about $2.0 million; Center for Biological Diversity $600,000; Iron Workers $500,000; Earthjustice about $209,000. The sheet also names Laborers, Operating Engineers Local 12, and Pipe Trades among the No contributors without a separate dollar on that line.

Voter-guide proposition list: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/

Arguments PDF index: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/index.htm

Official arguments.

Voter-guide proposition list: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/

If you see a way to make this more useful, send it.

— Ross Howell (rossabh)

Scroll to Top