November 3, 2026 General Election — 14 statewide propositions
California has the nation's worst supply shortage — over half of renters pay 30%+ of income in rent, yet only about 1% of the state budget goes to housing. The measure builds affordable homes for veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, working families and essential workers like teachers and nurses, dedicates $1.25 billion to veterans via the existing CalVet home-loan program, unlocks federal matching funds, and requires strict public reporting — with no new taxes.
Signers: Self-Help for the Elderly, California Federation of Teachers, US Vets. Supported by Habitat for Humanity California, Housing California.
No official argument against was submitted to the Voter Information Guide. Fiscally conservative groups nonetheless contend the state should fund housing from the existing budget rather than add roughly $18.5–$20B of debt service over 40 years.
Opposition identified outside the guide: California Taxpayers Association and budget hawks.
What it does: Approves $10B in general obligation bonds for the state's housing and homelessness program, plus up to $1.25B in revenue bonds for the CalVet veterans' housing and homelessness-prevention program. Funds flow under existing programs administered by the Dept. of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.
Fiscal: State would repay the $10B GO bonds primarily from the General Fund — LAO estimates annual payments of roughly $480 million for about 40 years (totaling ~$18.5B including interest). The $1.25B revenue portion is repaid from program participants.
The "California Middle-Class Homeownership & Family Home Construction Act" gives working- and middle-class Californians a path to ownership — and California the second-worst homeownership rate in the nation — while spurring construction and thousands of good-paying jobs. Backers stress zero cost to taxpayers: loans are repaid by buyers (a point the nonpartisan LAO also makes), so public debt isn't on the General Fund.
Advanced with the Building a Better California coalition; no official opposition counterbalance was filed.
No official argument against was submitted to the Voter Information Guide. Some housing advocates and fiscal conservatives nonetheless argue it spends billions to finance relatively few home purchases and could put upward pressure on new-home prices.
Critics outside the guide: certain housing-advocacy and taxpayer groups.
What it does: Directs the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to fund a "middle-class homeownership loan" — down-payment assistance covering up to 17% of a home's price for qualified buyers of new homes; buyers must provide at least a 3% down payment.
Fiscal: Revenue bonds repaid by the buyers' loan payments — not from the General Fund. Prop 37 is the buyer-oriented alternative to Prop 1's low-income/veteran rental-and-housing bond.
California's budget swung from a $100 billion surplus to a $50 billion deficit in just a few years — exactly the boom-and-bust cycle a bigger reserve is designed to smooth. The nonpartisan LAO recommends saving significantly more than current rules allow. Proponents say bigger reserves protect schools, hospitals, health clinics and public safety from the deepest cuts during downturns. The measure is backed across partisan lines, including Gov. Newsom and legislative leaders of both parties.
Signers: California Professional Firefighters, California Hospital Association, California Primary Care Association, education leaders.
Critics call it a "slush fund for Sacramento politicians," arguing the state lacks spending discipline (pointing to boondoggles and no-bid contracts) rather than new tools to save. They contend that by shifting money into reserves the Legislature can permanently sidestep voter-endorsed spending limits, and that even well-intentioned savings get spent imprudently once the economy turns.
Signers: Reform California (Carl DeMaio), county supervisor David Tangipa, vice chair Steven Choi.
What it does: Constitutional amendment that lets the state sock away up to 20% of General Fund revenue in the rainy-day reserve (up from 10%) and extends the required pay-down of debts when the reserve is full.
Fiscal: No direct spending; changes how future surpluses are saved or paid to loans.
Prop 3 is not a new tax — it keeps the current rates the wealthiest 2% of Californians (couples earning more than roughly $740,000) have paid for 15 years, preventing a massive tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. Revenue is constitutionally earmarked for classrooms and community colleges with annual audits and online transparency, and it also underpins funding for Medi-Cal, children's health care and wildfire protection.
Signers: California School Employees Association, California Professional Firefighters; supported by teacher unions.
"Temporary" taxes become permanent higher income taxes, with politicians spending without accountability. Opponents point to the state turning a $100 billion surplus into a $30 billion deficit in three years and argue revenue from the volatile top bracket wrongly replaces reliable budgeting — and that it deepens dependence on a handful of taxpayers who can relocate out of state.
Signers: California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California.
What it does: Makes permanent the temporary voter-approved surcharges on income above roughly $721,000 (couples) / $360,000 (individuals) that push the top combined rate toward 12.3%–13.3%. Revenue is earmarked for K-12 schools and community colleges (& some health care), estimated at roughly $5–$15 billion a year.
Elections should be "won, not bought" — more than $1 billion has been spent on California state candidate races since 2020. California is the only state that bans public financing; the 49 other states let communities adopt it. Prop 4 repeals that ban and lets each local government decide — with strict taxpayer safeguards, mandatory spending limits and broad-based support requirements to qualify, at a cost as low as about $1 per resident per year.
Signers: California Common Cause, California National Organization for Women; supported by the League of Women Voters.
It repeals a voter-approved law prohibiting politicians from using taxpayer dollars for their own campaigns, opening the door to taxpayer-funded incumbents. Critics stress candidates could still take special-interest money and receive public funds, and that eligibility details are left vague — so it doesn't actually remove special-interest money from politics.
Signers: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California, former FPPC chair Dan Schnur.
What it does: Repeals the constitutional prohibition against using public money for campaigns, opening the door to "clean money," small-donor-matching, and publicly funded elections in California & its cities/counties.
Recalls should decide whether an official stays or goes — not become a partisan "redo the election" tool. Under current rules a replacement can win with far less than a majority: in the 2021 gubernatorial recall a successor could have won with just 28% of recall voters. Prop 5 separates removal from replacement — if a governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor takes over and voters pick a successor at the next regular statewide election, keeping majority rule intact.
Signers: League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause.
It takes away your voice in choosing who comes next. Instead of voters choosing, politicians would often appoint allies to fill vacancies, or seats would sit empty for months until costly special elections — and the very official you recalled could run again. Opponents argue a century-old recall right to remove and replace shouldn't be halved to protect incumbents.
Signers: Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, Assemblymember Joe Patterson.
What it does: For statewide officers (governor, lieutenant governor, AG, etc.), separates the "remove" decision from the "replace" decision — skipping the simultaneous replacement question that has historically muddied recall elections.
A bipartisan, common-sense step to restore trust in elections — backers say nearly half of the signatures to qualify came from Democratic and independent voters. Besides photo ID at the polls, the measure requires election officials to clean up voter rolls, verify only citizens are registered, and submit to independent audits. Sponsors note states with voter ID laws have not seen participation decline.
Signers: Reform California, The Transparency Foundation, Latino American Political Association, California Women's Leadership Association.
Opponents cast it as a partisan power play that blocks citizens from voting. They warn mail voters would have to write a personal identification number that must exactly match state records — one wrong digit could get a valid ballot thrown out — and that obtaining the required ID creates real burdens for low-income, elderly, disabled, and homeless voters, plus enormous cost.
Opposed by Secretary of State Shirley Weber, the ACLU, NAACP, and League of Women Voters; key signatory is an elections-integrity activist.
What it does: Requires in-person voters to show government-issued photo ID and mail voters to provide identifying information with their ballot; directs the state to make identification available to voters who lack it.
Backers say federal healthcare funding cuts are forcing California to pay for care out of its own budget, and billionaires — who pay much lower effective tax rates than working families — should finally pay their share. The one-time 5% levy on wealth above ~$1 billion would raise roughly $100 billion toward health care for low- and moderate-income Californians, education and food assistance, with no impact on anyone below that threshold.
Sponsor: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. Supporters include Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Ro Khanna, California Nurses Association, CTA, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
A "flawed wealth-tax experiment" that damages the economy and destabilizes the budget without lowering healthcare costs. Opponents note it's a one-time, temporary tax with no built-in accountability; that it exempts itself from some voter-approved constitutional protections (they estimate over $3 billion a year less for classrooms); that it taxes retirement accounts and savings in a dangerous new way; and that wealth flight and legal challenges could leave revenue shortfalls.
Signers: California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association, California School Boards Association, California Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce.
What it does: Constitutional amendment that allows & levies a one-time 5% tax on net worth above ~$1 billion — roughly 200 of California's richest taxpayers. Revenue split: 90% to health care for low- and moderate-income Californians, 10% to education and food assistance.
Polling: 54% of likely voters support it (PPIC, May 2026). Two countermeasures (41 and 42) are drafted to cancel or constrain it.
Voters deserve independent information about how new taxes would actually be spent before they vote — the State Auditor would audit programs funded by proposed new taxes and publish the results in the Voter Information Guide, plus conduct ongoing performance and financial audits of existing special-tax programs. Backers frame it as "better results for our tax dollars" in an era of high taxes and rising costs.
Signers: California Taxpayers Association, California Society of CPAs, California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, former State Controller Steve Westly.
A billionaire-funded initiative designed to undo the billionaire tax (Prop 40) by adding costly new hurdles and red tape to taxes that fund public services. Opponents argue pre-ballot audits delay or kill needed revenue measures; that the real motive is to protect wealthy donors (including Google co-founder Sergey Brin) from the wealth tax; and that it's an expensive scheme with few practical benefits.
Signer: Suzanne Jimenez, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.
What it does: A transparency-and-audit measure aimed at both the Prop 40 wealth tax and future special-tax initiatives — pre-ballot review and permanent ongoing audits of how special-tax money is spent.
California is already the third-most-expensive state to retire in, and a 2026 survey found 73% of Californians know someone who has delayed retirement for financial reasons. Prop 42 protects retirement accounts — 401(k)s, pensions, IRAs — and personal savings from any new wealth or personal-property tax, whether passed by the Legislature or a future ballot measure, and bars certain retroactive taxes. It's a firewall against the wealth tax on Prop 40.
Signers: California Professional Firefighters, State Building & Construction Trades Council, PORAC (peace officers), California Small Business Association.
A billionaire-funded initiative engineered to cancel out the billionaire tax (Prop 40). Opponents say backers — including Sergey Brin, who has spent heavily on these countermeasures — are trying to stop the very wealthy from paying for the services and workforce that built California, and that killing the wealth tax leaves the middle class stuck with higher healthcare costs.
Signer: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West; cited: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.
What it does: A constitutional firewall against wealth taxes in California — squarely drafted to invalidate Prop 40's billionaires' tax. Also bars certain retroactive tax increases.
The "Local Taxpayer Protection Act" responds to California's highest-in-the-nation income, sales and gas taxes. It restores the longtime two-thirds requirement for a defined class of local special and general taxes — protecting homeowners, renters and small businesses from costly new sales, parcel, utility and real-estate levies — and requires that approved tax dollars be spent only for the purposes voters approved, preventing "bait-and-switch" schemes.
Signers: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Small Business Association, California Consumer Advocates for Affordability and Safety; pushed by Reform California.
It lets just over one-third of voters (33.4%) block what nearly two-thirds want, undermining majority rule and making it far harder for cities and counties to fund essential services — police and fire, local roads, schools, parks and transit — especially with federal health funding being cut. Opponents argue local officials and voters are already accountable through elections.
Signers: California School Employees Association, Nurse Alliance of SEIU California, and public-safety/health groups.
What it does: Raises the local voter bar for a defined class of taxes (county/city and some district-level levies) from a simple majority to a two-thirds vote.
Patient advocates — the Alzheimer's Association, Michael J. Fox Foundation, American Nurses Association-California, ALS Association, Prostate Cancer Foundation and others — argue breakthrough immunotherapies already cure cancers like melanoma and leukemia, and that federal funding cuts threaten progress on Alzheimer's, heart disease, Parkinson's and ALS. The measure includes a 20% discount for Californians on therapies it helps develop, a 2% cap on administrative costs, independent audits and public disclosure.
Signers: Michael J. Fox Foundation, American Nurses Association\California, and a cancer survivor-citizen signatory.
Approximately $8.4 billion in borrowing — primarily through a new UC institute — is not the best way to invest in science. Critics note economic benefits from research generally don't flow back to the state treasury, and that the required price-discount provisions could actually discourage companies from developing therapies here. They say private philanthropy and federal grants already support this research.
Signer: an experienced state fiscal officer who opposes new borrowing.
What it does: GO bond for research into how the body's immune system fights disease. Requires at least $4.2 billion (half) to go to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's research, with administrative costs capped at 2%.
Fiscal: Repaid from the General Fund — LAO estimates roughly $430 million a year for about 30 years (over $13B with interest).
Community health clinics receive billions in taxpayer dollars, yet some spend less than half their funding on patient care while large shares go to bloated CEO salaries, lavish events and expensive consultants. Prop 44 requires 90% of revenue go to actual patient care and services — visits, mental health, dental, medications, equipment, translation, outreach — with clinics that fall short paying the state the shortfall.
Signers: initiative proponent Shawna Brown and community-clinic workers.
A "dangerous, poorly drafted" measure that would threaten care for millions of patients. Clinic, physician and nursing groups warn a rigid 90% formula ignores capital needs, mental-health outreach and the real cost structure of safety-net care — and that eliminating the only remaining sources of care in underserved communities would increase wait times and ER reliance.
Signers: American Academy of Pediatrics (California), California Medical Association, California School Nurses Organization.
What it does: Applies to many of the state's community clinics (which receive billions in taxpayer dollars); the Attorney General would define qualifying service spending. Clinics that fall short pay the state a penalty equal to the shortfall, recoverable if they comply within five years.
Fiscal: State enforcement costs in the low tens of millions per year, covered by fees charged to affected clinics.
California's outdated project-approval system is "too slow, too bureaucratic and too costly," blocking essential housing, water, clean energy, roads, schools, hospitals and wildfire-prevention projects and driving up the cost of living. Prop 45 caps environmental review at 365 days and court challenges at about a year for a defined list of project types — while backers insist it maintains every federal, state and local environmental law, including the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and creates tens of thousands of jobs.
Sponsor: California Chamber of Commerce; signers include the Family Business Association and California Children's Hospital Association. Backed by the Building a Better California coalition ($25M+).
Prop 45 limits environmental and public review of major development, weakening communities' right to be heard and letting projects proceed with far less scrutiny of harms to air, water, and public health — including data centers and industrial build-outs. Critics note it contains no requirement to lower housing or utility costs, and that taxpayer dollars would fund cleanup of pollution that less oversight allows.
Signers: Coalition for Clean Air, Physicians for Social Responsibility (Los Angeles), Clean Water Action; $4M+ raised by "No on 45."
What it does: The largest overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, signed 1970) since its passage. For a defined list of "essential" project types — most housing, transportation, water (new reservoirs, desalination), health, and clean-energy (solar, wind, battery) projects — it sets a 365-day cap on environmental review and requires courts to rule within 270 days (90-day optional extension) on lawsuits. Includes forest-thinning for wildfire risk. Would also cover some broadband/internet projects.
Polling: 73% support in a July PPIC survey (supported by majorities of Dems, Reps, and independents).