Proposition 1: Housing Bond
Recommendation: No
Prop 1 is titled the “Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026,” but veterans are a small part of it. Of the $11.25 billion total, $1.25 billion goes to the CalVet Home Loan Program, and veterans repay that portion through their mortgage payments. The other $10 billion funds a range of state housing programs, including affordable rental housing, homebuyer assistance, and housing for farmworkers, students, and people experiencing homelessness.
That $10 billion is borrowed money, repaid from the state’s General Fund, the same budget that pays for schools, health care, and public safety. The Legislative Analyst estimates repayment at $500 million to $600 million a year for about 25 years. With interest, taxpayers would pay back roughly $13 billion to $15 billion to borrow $10 billion. Every dollar spent on debt payments is a dollar not available for other priorities for the next quarter century.
California voters approved housing bonds in 2018 and again in 2024. Housing is a real need, but continually adding long-term debt is not a sustainable way to meet it. If these programs are a priority, the state should fund them through its regular budget and weigh them against everything else it pays for, rather than asking voters to take on more debt.
We support building more housing. That is why we recommend Yes on Prop 45, which cuts the delays that drive up construction costs, and Yes on Prop 37, which helps buyers at no cost to taxpayers. Prop 1 is the wrong approach.
Proposition 2: Rainy Day Fund
Recommendation: No
California’s tax revenue rises and falls with the stock market, because the state depends heavily on income taxes from high earners and capital gains. Prop 2 tries to manage those swings by letting the state save up to 20% of its general fund revenue in its Rainy Day Fund, up from 10%, and by allowing some revenue to go toward paying down the state’s federal unemployment insurance debt.
Saving more in good years is a sensible goal. But Prop 2 also exempts those reserve deposits from the Gann Limit, the voter-approved cap on state spending passed in 1979. The Gann Limit has already been weakened over the years, most significantly by Propositions 98 in 1988 and 111 in 1990, which changed how it is calculated and what counts toward it. Prop 2 loosens it further instead of restoring it.
California does not have a savings problem so much as a spending problem. Spending has grown faster than the state can sustain, leading to repeated structural deficits and budget “emergencies” that were largely self-inflicted. What the state needs is real spending discipline, including a spending limit with teeth. Prop 2 adjusts the rules for the reserve account without addressing the underlying problem. It is a patch on a much larger problem, and it chips away further at one of the few spending controls voters have put in place.
Proposition 3: Make the High-Income Tax Permanent
Recommendation: No
In 2012, voters approved Proposition 30, which raised income tax rates on high earners temporarily to help fund schools during a budget crisis. In 2016, voters extended those rates through Proposition 55, again on a temporary basis. Prop 3 would now make them permanent.
The rates were sold to voters twice as temporary. Making them permanent breaks that promise. Temporary tax increases should not become a path to permanent ones, and voters are right to be skeptical when “temporary” keeps getting extended.
California already has the highest income tax rates in the country. The state budget keeps growing, and residents have not seen the cost of living go down as a result. Before making these rates permanent, the state should show it is spending what it already collects wisely.
There is also no urgency. The current rates remain in effect through 2030, so schools lose no funding if Prop 3 fails. If the state believes these rates are still needed, it can make that case to voters closer to their expiration, with a clearer picture of the budget at that time.
Proposition 4: Public Campaign Financing
Recommendation: No
Since 1988, state law has banned the use of public money to fund most political campaigns. Prop 4 would lift that ban, allowing the state, counties, and school districts to create programs that use tax dollars to help pay for candidates’ campaigns.
Taxpayers should not have to pay for political campaigns, whether for new candidates or for incumbents running for re-election. Public money is already stretched thin for schools, roads, and public safety. Campaigns should be funded by the people who choose to support them, not by every taxpayer regardless of whether they agree with the candidate.
As a charter city, Vallejo can already choose to publicly fund City Council races, and has not. Prop 4 would extend that option to the county, school districts, and the state. We don’t think it should.
Prop 4 also increases fines for illegal campaign spending by foreign governments and foreign entities. That part is reasonable, and the Legislature can pass it on its own without lifting the ban on taxpayer-funded campaigns.
Proposition 5: Recall Reform
Recommendation: Yes
Today, a state recall election asks voters two questions: should the official be removed, and if so, who should replace them? Prop 5 would remove the second question. Voters would still decide whether to recall an official, but the seat would then be filled through the same rules used for any other vacancy.
For a governor, the lieutenant governor would take over. If the recall happens early in the governor’s term, a special election would be held with the next statewide primary. The winner would need a majority of the vote, and if no one gets a majority, the top two candidates would go to a runoff. The measure would also let a recalled official run in that later election, which the current rules do not allow.
The current system has a serious flaw. Under it, a governor can be removed by nearly half the voters and replaced by someone who wins only a small fraction of the vote in a crowded field of replacement candidates, with no majority required. The two-question ballot also confuses voters, many of whom are unsure whether they can choose a replacement after voting against the recall. Prop 5 keeps voters’ power to remove an official, and it makes sure a replacement governor has real support. The League of Women Voters of California supports it.
Opponents, including the Election Integrity Project California, argue that voters should always get to choose the replacement directly, and that automatic succession by the lieutenant governor gives voters less say. That is a fair concern. But under Prop 5, voters still choose a replacement governor in any early recall, just in a separate election that requires majority support.
Proposition 37: Middle-Income Home Loans
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 37 would create a state loan program to help middle-income Californians buy newly built homes. Buyers would put down at least 3% of the price, and the program would lend up to another 17% as a fixed-rate second mortgage. Buyers would still need a regular first mortgage from a lender for the rest. The program applies to newly built homes, or former commercial buildings converted to housing, priced below roughly $1 million to $1.5 million depending on the county. Buyers must live in the home and earn no more than double their area’s median income.
The program would be funded by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds, repaid by the borrowers’ loan payments rather than by taxpayers. The state’s Legislative Analyst found it would have no direct state or local costs. If borrowers default, the losses fall on bond investors, not the state.
For many buyers, the biggest obstacle to owning a home is saving for a down payment. With 3% down plus the state’s 17%, a buyer reaches the 20% needed to avoid mortgage insurance on the first loan. Whether that works out cheaper than options like an FHA loan will depend on the interest rate the state sets, which isn’t known yet. The program is also limited to new construction, so it won’t help buyers looking at most existing homes in Vallejo. It’s one more option, not a replacement for the ones buyers have today.
Voters should know that Prop 37 also changes rules for builders. Developers can choose a “qualified builder option” that requires higher labor and liability standards, but in exchange gives them more flexibility under construction defect rules. Builders argue current rules make new homes, especially condos and townhomes, too risky to build, and condo construction in California has slowed to a trickle. The tradeoff is that these changes could make it harder for some homeowners to pursue claims against builders for defects.
We think the balance favors Yes. Prop 37 helps middle-income buyers and encourages new construction, especially of the condos and townhomes that are the most realistic path to ownership for many families, at no direct cost to taxpayers. Buyers considering the program should still compare it with other loan options and understand the builder protections before signing.
Proposition 38: Immunology Research Bond
Recommendation: No
Prop 38 would borrow $8.4 billion for research on immune-based treatments for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, and other diseases. Repayment would cost the state $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, from the same general fund that pays for schools and health care.
Medical research is important, but this is the wrong way to fund it. Half the money, $4.2 billion, would go to a single nonprofit institute. The measure never names it, but its eligibility rules appear to fit only one organization. Funding decisions this large belong in the state budget process, where they can be weighed against other priorities. The League of Women Voters of California also opposes it.
Proposition 39: Voter ID
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 39 would amend the state constitution to require voters to show government-issued ID when voting in person, and to provide the last four digits of an ID number when voting by mail. It would also require state and county officials to verify voters’ citizenship using government data and report the results each year.
The debate over voter ID has gone on for years without resolution. Putting it in the constitution settles the question and lets both sides move on. Most Californians already have a driver’s license or state ID, and voters without ID could still cast a provisional ballot. Supporters and opponents both have strong feelings about this measure, and we respect the concerns about access. If it passes, the state should make getting an ID easy and free for anyone who needs one.
Proposition 40: One-Time Billionaire Tax
Recommendation: No
Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of Californians with more than $1 billion in assets who lived in the state on January 1, 2026. Ninety percent of the revenue would go to health care, with the rest going to education, food assistance, and administering the tax. The goal is to replace federal Medi-Cal funding cut by Congress.
The problem it’s trying to solve is real. The concern is that this approach costs more than it raises over time. The state’s own Legislative Analyst warns that some billionaires may leave California in response, and that the income taxes they currently pay would leave with them. That loss could reach hundreds of millions of dollars a year or more. That ongoing revenue would be traded for one payment, while the health care costs it’s meant to cover continue.
A one-time tax is also a poor match for an ongoing expense. When the money runs out, the funding gap returns and the state is left without a long-term plan.
Opposition to Prop 40 spans the political spectrum:
- Governor Gavin Newsom opposes it, arguing it would drive wealthy residents out and weaken the state’s tax base. He supports a national wealth tax instead, so that one state is not acting alone.
- Both candidates for governor, Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, oppose it. Becerra has called it “sketchy policy,” and Hilton says it will hurt the state’s economy.
- The San Francisco Democratic Party voted 17 to 4 against endorsing it, breaking from the state party, and passed a resolution supporting a national wealth tax instead.
- Other opponents include the California Teachers Association, California Professional Firefighters, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the California Hospital Association.
The California Democratic Party narrowly endorsed Prop 40. When the sitting governor, both candidates to succeed him, and the Democratic Party in the state’s most progressive city all oppose a measure, voters should take that seriously.
Proposition 41: Audits for New Special Taxes
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 41 would require the independent State Auditor to review programs funded by new statewide special taxes, both before a tax goes to voters and on a recurring basis after it passes. Before a proposed special tax reaches the ballot, the auditor would assess whether the program it funds could cut its own spending by at least 10% a year. The results would be printed in the voter guide, so voters see them before deciding.
The measure also nullifies new state taxes passed after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenue from California’s voter-approved spending limit. Going forward, new taxes would count toward that limit like other state revenue.
California taxpayers have seen billions go into programs, homelessness among them, with too little to show for it. Asking whether a program is working before voters are asked to fund it more is a reasonable standard. Voters should have that information before they vote, not after.
Prop 41 also affects Prop 40. Because Prop 40 exempts its revenue from the spending limit, Prop 41 would nullify it if Prop 41 receives more votes. Supporters of the billionaire tax argue this is the real purpose of Prop 41. That may be part of why it’s on the ballot, but the audit requirement has merit on its own. For voters voting No on Prop 40, as we recommend, a Yes on Prop 41 is consistent.
One thing voters should know: Prop 41 goes beyond audits. Because future special taxes would count toward the spending limit, they could trigger automatic refunds that reduce funding for other programs. That makes new special taxes harder to pass and to spend in the future, not just this one.
Proposition 42: Ban on New State Taxes on Personal Property
Recommendation: No
Prop 42 would amend the state constitution to prohibit any new state tax on the ownership of personal property, meaning anything people own other than real estate. That includes savings, investments, retirement accounts, and business interests. It would also ban new state taxes that apply retroactively based on a taxpayer’s past activities, and it would void conflicting taxes passed after January 1, 2026.
Supporters argue that most savings come from income that was already taxed, and that taxing ownership taxes the same money twice. That concern is reasonable. But Prop 42 settles the question permanently, in the constitution, for every future legislature and every future voter. Reversing it would take another statewide ballot measure.
That is a lot to decide in advance. Whether California should ever tax wealth, and in what form, is a serious debate. It deserves to be decided on the merits of a specific proposal when one comes forward, not ruled out ahead of time.
Prop 42 is also not needed to stop the billionaire tax. A No vote on Prop 40, which we recommend, does that directly, and Prop 41, which we support, provides a backstop. Voters who oppose Prop 40 do not need Prop 42 to defeat it.
Proposition 43: Two-Thirds Vote for Local Special Taxes
Recommendation: Yes
A special tax is a local tax dedicated to a specific purpose, such as parks, libraries, or public safety. When a city council, county board, or school district puts a special tax on the ballot, it already needs a two-thirds vote to pass. But special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen petition need only a simple majority. Prop 43 would require two-thirds for those as well, starting in 2027.
Californians already pay some of the highest taxes in the country, and new taxes keep being added on top of old ones. Before asking residents to pay more, government should show it is making good use of what it already collects, and look for taxes it can reduce or end. New taxes should have to clear a high bar. Prop 43 sets that bar at two-thirds for every local special tax, no matter who puts it on the ballot.
It also closes a gap. The same tax, for the same purpose, should not need 67% of the vote if the city proposes it but only 50% plus one if an outside group gathers signatures for it.
Opponents argue that Prop 43 lets a third of voters block measures most people support. That is a fair concern. But residents can still propose special taxes by petition. They will simply need the broad support required of everyone else.
Proposition 44: Clinic Spending Rule
Recommendation: No
Prop 44 would require nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on patient care, with state fines for clinics that fall short.
The goal sounds reasonable, but the measure is opposed by the California Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, family physicians, and school nurses, who warn it could force hundreds of clinics to close or cut services. It is sponsored by a health workers union that tried and failed to pass a similar bill in the Legislature. Community clinics already face federal and state oversight, and they serve many of California’s most vulnerable patients. This is the wrong tool.
Proposition 45: Faster Environmental Review
Recommendation: Yes
Prop 45 would speed up environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, for housing, transportation, water, schools, health, clean energy, and wildfire prevention projects. It would set a 365-day limit on reviews and require courts to rule on related lawsuits within 270 days.
Delays in permitting and review drive up the cost of everything California needs to build, and those costs are passed on to residents. Projects still need environmental review under Prop 45, and communities keep the right to comment and to sue. The difference is deadlines. Opponents raise fair concerns about weakening public oversight, and the measure will have some upfront costs to state and local agencies. But a system that lets important projects stall for years is not working.