California voters will resolve 14 statewide propositions within the Nov. 3 election, measures positioned on the poll largely by both highly effective curiosity teams or lawmakers that can have an effect on the lives of thousands and thousands of Californians.
Whereas a proposed tax on state billionaires has dominated headlines, voters may also have an opportunity to weigh in on a variety of consequential points, from healthcare to voter identification necessities and extra.
Californians are accustomed to legislating by the poll and typically face a listing of propositions. However even by the requirements of the state’s direct democracy course of, the 2026 election stands out. The campaigns supporting and opposing the poll measures have already collected greater than $100 million in contributions, and are anticipated to make use of their cash to inundate the tv airwaves, livestreams and social media feeds and to flood mailboxes with shiny marketing campaign mailers over the approaching months.
Listed below are the measures on the Nov. 3 poll:
Proposition 1: The Veterans and Inexpensive Housing Bond Act of 2026
Spurred by the state’s inexpensive housing scarcity, state lawmakers are asking voters to approve an $11.25-billion bond to spice up inexpensive housing building across the state.
Advocates say the funds would assist construct greater than 40,000 shovel-ready inexpensive properties which are unable to maneuver ahead due to a financing hole and assist protect 1000’s of different present models.
Proposition 1 contains particular funding for high-need teams, together with $1.25 billion for a veterans’ residence mortgage program, $1.15 billion for supportive housing for homeless individuals, $350 million for pupil housing at state universities, $450 million for farmworker housing and $200 million for Native American tribes.
“In California, we don’t flip away from the wants of our individuals — we meet them head-on,” mentioned Gov. Gavin Newsom in an announcement in regards to the measure. “We’re giving voters the facility to assist form the way forward for housing in our state. This bond is about constructing communities, increasing entry and affordability in California, the place each household has a good shot at a spot to name residence.”
Some Republicans took problem with the measure’s title — “The Veterans and Inexpensive Housing Bond Act of 2026” — arguing that it included veterans to have broader attraction whereas doing little to truly assist homeless veterans.
“It’s a tragic factor to say that it’s important to use the veterans as bait to get the individuals of the state of California to approve an $11-billion bond, and I simply suppose that’s shameful,” mentioned Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), an Military veteran. “Name it what it’s. It’s a homeless bond, and it does embrace some veterans’ advantages, however it isn’t a veterans bond.”
Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act
This measure would give California lawmakers extra flexibility over state spending and permit them to economize that would in any other case return to taxpayers.
The measure, supported by Newsom, seeks to exempt deposits into state financial savings accounts from a spending restrict that voters adopted via a collection of poll measures relationship again to the late Seventies, and to extend the share of tax income that may be put into the wet day fund.
Beneath an present state appropriations restraint, also referred to as the Gann Restrict, lawmakers can’t spend greater than an quantity decided by a system that takes annual tax proceeds, adjustments to the inhabitants and price of dwelling into consideration. Tax income above the restrict have to be divided between colleges and refunds to taxpayers.
The measure might incentivize lawmakers to avoid wasting extra money as a result of funds tucked away within the wet day fund would now not be thought of expenditures counted towards the spending restrict. By permitting lawmakers to put aside extra money that isn’t subjected to state spending limits, it might additionally enable them to carry onto cash that in any other case could be returned to taxpayers below present regulation.
This proposed constitutional modification was positioned on the poll by state lawmakers.
Proposition 3: Fund colleges and healthcare
If handed, this proposition would make everlasting an present tax on high-income Californians.
The prevailing tax, handed by voters in 2012 and prolonged in 2016, is about to run out in 2031. It applies to individuals who earn greater than $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of family. It provides between 1% to three% to those excessive earners’ private earnings tax charges.
In accordance with the initiative textual content, the funds are largely earmarked for native faculty districts and neighborhood faculties, with some portion of the cash going to California’s wet day reserves — which the state makes use of to stop cuts to healthcare and different providers when revenues decline. The measure says revenues can’t be spent on state paperwork or administrative prices.
The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Workplace expects the measure to usher in between $5 billion and $15 billion yearly, relying on how the inventory market is performing, with the quantity anticipated to develop over time.
Proposition 4: Public financing of campaigns
This measure would enable the state and native governments to supply public marketing campaign financing to candidates operating for elected workplace. Candidates receiving the funding should abide by expenditure limits and cling to the factors set by statute, ordinance or constitution to exhibit broad assist, corresponding to exhibit a lot of small greenback contributions.
Not one of the public marketing campaign financing can come from funds designated for schooling, transportation or public security. The financing can’t discriminate based mostly on get together or whether or not a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. The general public funds can’t be used for authorized prices, fines or to pay again private loans to a marketing campaign.
This measure was positioned on the poll by the California Legislature and governor.
Proposition 5: Recall elections
This measure would change the best way recall elections are performed in California. Beneath this proposed constitutional modification, throughout a recall election, voters would resolve solely whether or not a politician needs to be faraway from their elected place. If the recall is profitable, that workplace would stay vacant till it’s crammed in accordance with present regulation — both by a separate election or by appointment.
Beneath present regulation, voters make two separate selections throughout a recall election: Whether or not to take away the topic of the recall from workplace and, if they’re booted, which candidate operating to interchange them ought to fill the place. The candidate who receives essentially the most votes wins, even when they obtain far lower than 50% of the vote.
The proposed constitutional modification would additionally enable the recalled politician to run within the subsequent election to fill the emptiness, although they can’t be appointed to their former submit. Beneath the present system, workplace holders focused in a recall are barred from being a candidate to interchange themselves in that very same election.
The proposal comes within the wake of the unsuccessful, Republican-led recall marketing campaign towards Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, which partially examined voter sentiment about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of many sponsors of the recall-reform measure was Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who was recalled from workplace in 2018 after he voted to extend fuel taxes for highway repairs, laws pushed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. Newman received again his seat in 2020.
This proposed constitutional modification was positioned on the poll by the California Legislature.
Proposition 37: Homeownership mortgage program
Proposition 37 would create a down cost help program to assist middle-class Californians purchase a brand new residence.
The measure, spearheaded by former state Senate Majority Chief Bob Hertzberg, would enable middle-class California residents — outlined as anybody who makes lower than 200% of an space’s median earnings — borrow most of their down cost for a brand new residence that they plan to stay in. It’s designed to spice up building of single-family properties.
A down cost is historically about 20% of the acquisition worth of a house. If handed, the measure would create a state-administered mortgage program that provides certified homebuyers a second mortgage of as much as 17% of a house’s sale worth.
The proposition would enable the California Housing Finance Company to problem as much as $25 billion in income bonds to manage this system.
The Legislative Analyst’s Workplace doesn’t anticipate the measure to lead to direct state or native prices as a result of the prices are supposed to be coated by owners’ mortgage funds.
Proposition 38: Immunology analysis bond
Proposition 38 asks voters to approve an $8.4-billion bond to assist analysis within the burgeoning fields of immunology and immunotherapy, which examine the human immune system and the way it may be used to stop, deal with and remedy illnesses.
If accepted, half of the funding would go towards the creation of a brand new immunology and immunotherapy analysis institute affiliated with the College of California. The opposite half would fund analysis grants for different California-based universities and nonprofit medical analysis establishments to check potential therapies for most cancers, Alzheimer’s illness and coronary heart illness.
The measure has a built-in low cost program for Californians — it requires that any know-how or medication developed from bond-funded analysis be offered to California sufferers for a worth no less than 20% under the nationwide common.
Backers of the proposal embrace the Alzheimer’s Assn., Nationwide A number of Sclerosis Society and different healthcare teams. Supporters argue the funding would facilitate analysis that would save lives and save sufferers “billions of {dollars} in well being care prices by stopping and curing a spread of debilitating illnesses and sicknesses,” in response to the initiative textual content.
Proposition 39: Voter identification
Proposition 39 would require Californians to indicate government-issued identification each time they vote on the polls.
At present, Californians should affirm below penalty of perjury that they’re U.S. residents and supply data to confirm their id, corresponding to their beginning date, driver’s license or Social Safety quantity, when registering to vote, however they don’t must current identification after they solid their poll.
Beneath this measure, voters would additionally have to current government-issued ID every time they vote in-person on the polls or, if voting by mail, present the final 4 digits of a “distinctive figuring out quantity from government-issued identification” that matches the one they offered after they registered to vote. California could be required to offer free voter ID playing cards on request, and state and county election officers could be required to confirm registered voters are U.S. residents through the use of authorities knowledge.
The voter ID measure has assist from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who has framed it as essential to stop voter fraud and restore belief. It comes as President Trump is pushing for stricter voter identification necessities and extreme limits on voting by mail.
Democrats and voting rights teams, together with the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose the measure, saying California’s elections are already safe — voter impersonation and noncitizen voting instances are uncommon — and that it might make voting more durable for a lot of eligible voters, together with individuals who have modified names, transfer often or face housing instability.
In accordance with the Legislative Analyst’s Workplace, the measure would make election administration costlier, costing state and native governments wherever from tens of thousands and thousands to low tons of of thousands and thousands of {dollars} yearly, plus tens of thousands and thousands in upfront implementation prices.
Proposition 40: Billionaire tax
This proposition, supported by a healthcare employee union, would impose a one-time tax of 5% on taxpayers and trusts with belongings valued at greater than $1 billion.
In accordance with a state-prepared abstract of the measure, 90% of the tax revenues could be spent on healthcare and 10% would fund meals help or education-related packages. California’s richest residents would have the ability to unfold the funds over 5 years.
The Legislative Analyst’s Workplace estimates it might generate “tens of billions of {dollars}” unfold over a number of years, however would result in an annual lower in state earnings tax revenues of “tons of of thousands and thousands of {dollars} or extra.”
Newsom has publicly opposed the tax, arguing it might lead rich residents to go away the state and result in future price range issues. Different opponents embrace Deliberate Parenthood, the California Faculty Boards Assn. and a nonprofit referred to as Constructing a Higher California that’s backed by tech execs and enterprise capitalists.
Some billionaires have already proactively moved themselves or their companies out of the state due to the proposal, which as written would retroactively apply to residents of the state as of Jan. 1.
Proposition 41: Requires limits and audits on new state particular taxes
That is certainly one of two poll measures crafted by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a brand new tax on California billionaires, and it might in impact undercut or curtail that wealth tax.
This proposed poll measure would additionally prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from the state’s present voter-approved spending restrict. The proposed billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. If the billionaire tax proposal is accepted by voters however this proposal receives extra votes, the billionaire tax measure could be voided.
The measure would require the state auditor to conduct a monetary and efficiency audit of proposed poll initiatives and of the packages they fund. The measure would require audits of any program that may obtain funding from the particular tax within the proposed initiative to evaluate the effectivity of this system and advocate who ought to scale back its annual prices by 10%. If the measure passes, the prices of the audits could be paid through the revenues generated by the particular tax.
This poll initiative is certainly one of two so-called poison capsules to sink the billionaire tax that’s being bankrolled by Constructing a Higher California, which has raised effectively over $100 million from the state’s most prosperous. The biggest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California due to the tax proposal. He donated no less than $82 million to the group as of late June.
Proposition 42: Ban on new state private property taxes
That is certainly one of two poll measures created by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a tax on California billionaires, and it might in impact void that wealth tax.
This proposed poll measure would prohibit new taxes on private property, mental property, retirement accounts and different belongings and would restrict conditions wherein a poll measure or state lawmakers can impose or increase taxes retroactively — each of that are important elements of the billionaire tax initiative.
If the billionaire tax proposal is accepted by voters however this proposal receives extra votes, the billionaire tax poll measure could be voided.
This poll initiative is certainly one of two so-called poison capsules to sink the billionaire tax that’s being bankrolled by Constructing a Higher California, which has raised effectively over $100 million from the state’s most prosperous. The biggest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California due to the tax proposal. He donated no less than $82 million to the group as of late June.
Proposition 43: Voting thresholds for particular taxes
The measure would prohibit native governments from imposing new particular taxes until the proposed tax receives approval from two-thirds of voters. The restriction additionally applies to citizen initiatives, which at the moment solely want a easy majority vote to be accepted.
It might additionally restrict cities’ means to impose taxes on property gross sales. In constitution cities, the measure would forestall voters from approving any actual property switch taxes past the state’s present charge of 0.11% of a property’s sale worth. It might additionally cancel some present property-related taxes.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. helps Proposition 43. The advocacy group has characterised the measure as an effort to “save” 1978’s Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that capped California property tax will increase and required a super-majority of votes to approve most future tax will increase.
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the laws that grew to become Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote towards it. She mentioned the one cause she crafted the invoice was as a result of it was a essential bargaining chip to torpedo one other poll measure backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. that may have devastated revenues for native governments and retroactively rescinded some native tax will increase.
“I authored ACA 22 not as a result of I wished it to change into regulation — however as a result of it was the one path left to get the extra harmful initiative off the poll earlier than time ran out,” Wicks posted on social media.
Proposition 44: Regulate well being clinic spending
If handed, Proposition 44 would require federally certified well being facilities to spend 90% of their income on “program providers advancing their charitable function” quite than administration and overhead. Group clinics that fail to conform could be penalized, with fines positioned in a state-managed fund to be spent on clinic workforce packages.
Advocates say clinics spend an excessive amount of on government pay and different administrative prices and never sufficient on affected person care. The measure, which might dictate how clinics spend cash, is designed to repair that. The measure is backed by the Service Staff Worldwide Union-United Healthcare Employees West, an influential healthcare employees union, which argues it should assist maintain clinics accountable.
In Might, the California Major Care Assn., which represents greater than 2,300 neighborhood well being clinics, sued to dam the poll measure. The state’s highly effective docs’ foyer, the California Medical Assn., additionally opposes the measure, arguing it might ban clinics from protecting funding in reserves and hamper their means to improve tools or develop to new areas.
The Legislative Analyst’s Workplace estimates that imposing the measure would price the federal government as much as the low tens of thousands and thousands yearly, and that a lot of the associated fee could be paid for via penalties and costs charged to affected clinics. The workplace says the measure has “unsure” impacts and will result in clinic closures.
Proposition 45: CEQA reform
This proposition would amend the California Environmental High quality Act, or CEQA, and pace up the method for initiatives deemed “important,” together with sure housing, water, well being, public security, vitality and transportation initiatives.
Jails, detention services and oil or pure fuel manufacturing services wouldn’t be thought of “important” initiatives, in response to the measure textual content.
If handed, the measure would set deadlines for public businesses to finish environmental assessment, enable expedited assessment of a venture’s environmental impacts — at the moment, public businesses are required to think about a spread of possible alternate options to scale back environmental impacts — and set up deadlines for submitting and resolving lawsuits.
CEQA lawsuits have typically been used to dam building of housing within the state. For example, in Berkeley, neighbors used CEQA — citing potential noise impression from partying college students — to delay, for years, UC Berkeley’s building of pupil dorms on Folks’s Park.
The Legislative Analyst’s Workplace estimates that the state and native authorities implementation will price within the tens of thousands and thousands of {dollars} for the primary a number of years. It notes the laws would in all probability lead to web financial savings in the long run because of lowered administrative and authorized workload.
Occasions workers writers Seema Mehta and Phil Willon contributed to this report.
