Information for this ballot guide was sourced from CalMatters, the California Budget & Policy Center, and the state’s General Election guide.
Prop 1
A Yes Vote Means
$11.25 billion in general obligation bonds would be acquired for affordable housing. Over 60% of the funds will go towards low-interest loans for local governments and private developers to acquire, build or renovate low-income rental housing. The remaining 40% will go towards existing housing affordability programs like Multifamily Housing, CalVet and CalHome. The state sells bonds to investors who front the costs and are repaid over time with interest. A general obligation bond is repaid by taxes, rather than income generated by the project. The General Fund would repay the borrowed money over time, with an increased cost of $500-600 million per year for 25 years. However, units built through the program must remain low-income for at least 55 years. For a family of 4 making $87,450, low-income rent would mean $2,186 per month according to HUD.
A No Vote Means
The bonds will not be acquired to fund additional affordable housing and some existing affordable housing programs will need to look elsewhere to bridge the financial gap to keep construction going.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is partly funded by Airbnb, Building A Better California (founded by former Google executives to organize the wealthiest Californians) and the California Apartment Association (representing owners, investors, developers and landlords). Something to consider: over half of Prop 1’s funds would go towards low-interest loans for private developers, rather than existing programs.
What is a bond?
The state often sells bonds to investors who front the costs of a public project, and are repaid over time with interest. A general obligation bond is repaid by taxes, rather than income generated by the project. A revenue bond is repaid through assets made by the project like bridge tolls or mortgage payments.
Prop 2
A Yes Vote Means
The limit of deposits to the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), a “rainy day fund” the state can tap into during budget shortages or emergencies, would increase from 10% to 20% of general fund tax revenue per year. Prop 2 would increase BSA deposits from capital gains taxes, or taxes collected from the sales of stocks, bonds and other investments. A larger reserve could mean fewer cuts to programs during recessions.
A No Vote Means
The limit of how much can be deposited into the BSA would remain at 10% of the general fund tax revenue and capital gains would continue to be taxed at a flat rate regardless of the amount. Previous BSA withdrawals occurred in 2020-2021 due to the COVID pandemic and in 2024-2026 due to severe budget deficits.
Financials Worth Noting
Opposition to this proposition is funded by Reform California, a well-funded hyperconservative political action committee run by Republican assemblymember Carl DeMaio.
Prop 3
A Yes Vote Means
A higher income tax for the wealthiest 2% of Californians (making $370,000 - $1.5 million annually), which was originally established in 2012, would be made permanent. Revenues from the measure have contributed $120 billion to K-12 schools, community colleges and public healthcare since the tax passed and would continue to fund those services.
A No Vote Means
This wealth income tax would expire in 2031. Should Prop 3 fail, schools could lose up to $15 billion per year and low-income households in California would pay for a larger proportion of taxes than higher-income households. In 2024, the richest 0.1% of Californians made 268 times an average middle-income salary.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is partly funded by the California Teachers Association, one of the nation's largest education unions.
Who is “Building a Better California”?
A political action committee started in 2026 by former Google executives Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt to organize the wealthiest Californians against Prop 40, one of two wealth taxes on the ballot. They have organized opposition against Props 3 and 40 and support for Props 1, 37, 41, 42.
Prop 4
A Yes Vote Means
State and local governments could establish public campaign funds for eligible candidates, using government funds to match a portion of small donations a candidate earns or provide vouchers for campaign expenses. This would create fundraising channels independent of wealthy donors or special interest groups. Funds cannot be used for legal fees, fines or personal loans. Currently, this financing is legal only in Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco. In Los Angeles, public financing has resulted in more diverse voter contributions.
A No Vote Means
Public campaign financing would be limited to the five cities mentioned above.
Prop 5
A Yes Vote Means
Voters would decide whether to recall an elected state official, separately from deciding who should replace them. Prop 5 would delay selecting a successor until a separate election and would also allow the recalled official to be put on that future ballot.
A No Vote Means
The current system would remain, in which voters decide whether to recall an elected official and select a new successor on the same ballot.
Prop 37
A Yes Vote Means
The state would borrow $25 billion in revenue bonds to help buyers with incomes below 200% of the Area Median Income ($130,900 in San Diego County) get fixed-rate mortgages on newly built homes. The state sells bonds to investors who front the costs and get repaid over time with interest. A revenue bond is repaid by income generated by the project, or in this case, homeowners’ mortgage payments. This funding could be granted to families that make almost twice the standard income and no factors such as racial disparity, generational wealth or first-generation homeowners would be taken into consideration. Since white families are overrepresented in the state’s middle- and upper-class income brackets, this program may disproportionately benefit families that are already the largest group of homeowners in the state.
A No Vote Means
Prospective home buyers would continue to seek financing through other means.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is partly funded by Building A Better California. Current CalHFA programs that provide this kind of assistance don’t require repayment until the home is refinanced or sold.
Prop 38
A Yes Vote Means
An $8.4 billion general obligation bond would be used to fund immunotherapy research to fight cancer, Alzheimer’s and more. The money borrowed would be repaid over time from the General Fund, with an increased cost of $500-600 million per year for 20 years. Drugs created through this research must be discounted for Californians and 10% of the revenues would go to the state’s general fund. The bill’s language, however, is tailored to primarily benefit the California Institute for Immunotherapy, whose billionaire co-founder is the proposition’s primary backer.
A No Vote Means
No bond would be created to fund immunotherapy research.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is partly funded by Gary K. Michelson and the Michelson Center for Public Policy. Michelson co-founded the California Institute for Immunotherapy, which, under the specific language of this proposition, would receive half of the bond funds.
Prop 39
A Yes Vote Means
Election officials would be required to “use best efforts” to verify voters’ citizenship at the polls, and voters would be required to present “government-issued” ID. Prop 39 does not specify what types of ID would be accepted and could require all existing voters to re-register. According to the ACLU of Northern California, 28% of eligible voters without a current driver’s license are Black, 27% are Latine and 41% are people aged 18-24. Additionally, 47% of Black voters aged 18-29 don’t have a current driver’s license. These groups are most at risk of being removed from voter rolls. Prop 39 is part of a wider attempt by the federal government and several states to restrict Black, Latine and lower-income voters under the guise of voter fraud and anti-immigrant fear-mongering. Voting by noncitizens is extremely rare and inconsequential for election outcomes, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. White supremacists have used voter suppression laws in the form of poll taxes, literacy and “character” tests to prevent newly enfranchised Black citizens from voting since the Civil War.
A No Vote Means
Voters would continue to verify their citizenship and provide a driver’s license, social security number, state ID card or other unique identifier when registering to vote. Instances of voter fraud would remain negligible to election outcomes, or 0.0001% or less in most contested states, according to the Brookings Institute.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is partly funded by Richard Uihlein, the billionaire CEO of Uline and the fourth largest Republican donor in the 2023 and 2024 elections, along with Reform California, a well-funded hyperconservative political action committee run by Republican assemblymember Carl DeMaio who has made California voter ID laws a priority since his first term.
Prop 40
A Yes Vote Means
A one-time 5% tax would be imposed on the 200 Californians with a net worth exceeding $1 billion. The tax would raise $100 billion over five years to fund programs gutted by the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA), like Medi-Cal and food assistance programs like CalFresh. While the state boasts more wealth than any other in the country, the income disparity continues to be the starkest. In other words, much of California's wealth doesn’t necessarily “trickle down” to low-income households. Even if Prop 40 passes, it will be nullified if Props 41 and 42 receive more yes votes.
A No Vote Means
Funding gaps created by the OBBBA would persist. Some argue that a no vote would mean protecting future tax revenue by preventing billionaires from leaving the state to evade this tax.
Financials Worth Noting
Opposition for this proposition is heavily funded by Building A Better California and Chris Larsen, a San Francisco-based billionaire cryptocurrency and surveillance investor.
Prop 41
A Yes Vote Means
A state auditor review would be required to put special tax measures on the ballot. The review would need to ensure that the income generated from the tax counts towards the state’s spending limit. Prop 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires) would fail should Prop 41 or Prop 42 receive more yes votes.
A No Vote Means
Special tax measures like Prop 40 could be put on the ballot without a state auditor review.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is heavily funded by Building A Better California.
Prop 42
A Yes Vote Means
New taxes on assets like investment accounts and personal property would be prohibited, making a wealth tax in California much harder. Prop 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires) would fail should Prop 41 or Prop 42 receive more yes votes.
A No Vote Means
A wealth tax like Prop 40 can be put on the ballot.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is heavily funded by Building A Better California.
Prop 43
A Yes Vote Means
Citizen-driven ballot initiatives that create, extend or increase a special tax must pass by a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority. This requirement would allow a small minority to block citizen-led tax initiatives that most voters support. Since the California Supreme Court lowered the voting threshold for these initiatives to a simple majority, 30 new special local taxes have been passed, including a mansion tax in Los Angeles that funded affordable housing and homelessness programs.
A No Vote Means
Citizen-driven ballot initiatives for special taxes will continue to pass with a simple majority.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is heavily funded by the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Prop 44
A Yes Vote Means
Community clinics providing care for low-income patients must spend 90% of their annual revenue on expenses that advance their mission, including but not limited to patient services, rather than management or overhead. Qualifying expenses would be defined by California’s Attorney General and penalties could be refunded if in compliance within five years.
A No Vote Means
Community clinics providing care for low-income patients would continue to independently determine their budgets. Opponents argue that penalty fees and sudden changes could lead to facilities closing.
Financials Worth Noting
SEIU United Health Care Workers funds support for this proposition, while healthcare providers like Family Health Centers of San Diego fund the opposition, arguing that clinics are already regulated by federal and state oversight and that penalty fees could lead to closures.
Prop 45
A Yes Vote Means
Environmental reviews that research a project’s impact on infrastructure, housing, schools and wildfire mitigation would be limited to 365 days, allowing developers to more quickly advance “essential” projects. Prop 45 would also set limits on the court review process and evidence for environmental review-related lawsuits, in addition to limiting consultation power to federally recognized Indigenous nations.
A No Vote Means
Environmental reviews can continue to investigate a project's feasibility, using time as needed. State-recognized Indigenous nations would continue to be consulted.
Financials Worth Noting
Support for this proposition is heavily funded by Building A Better California.