Editor's Note: This effort was born out of family members and friends looking for advice about the oftentimes confusing ballot measures in California. It was once just a personal email list and now it has moved to SubStack where folks can opt in to receive a ballot guide before California elections, as well as have a site to visit to reference the measures. Feel free to share with friends and family if you find this helpful, and please unsubscribe without hesitation (no feelings will be hurt!) if you don't.
I do this to help people engage and take part in the process while offering my own viewpoints on the issues, but politics is very personal so if this helps you reach your vote by disagreeing with me, that's great too! Also note that this is not intended to be a complete analysis, so if you feel passionately about one of the measures I encourage you to dig in. Above all, participate in the process, a lot of people lived and died to give you that right and it's your most powerful tool for change.
Prop 1: Bonds for housing affordability programs
This measure would let the state borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing: $10 billion for housing programs and $1.25 billion for veterans’ home loans. Most of the housing money would go toward affordable rentals, with the rest helping people become homeowners and supporting other housing needs.
Repaying the housing bonds would cost the state $500–$600 million annually for 25 years. I support Prop 1 because I believe the only way out of California’s housing crisis is to build our way through it, and the alternative is a housing catastrophe for low- and middle-income families.
The funding would help support up to 40,000 rental units and help up to another 40,000 households buy, build, or repair homes. This won’t solve the issue, but it will certainly go a long way towards helping low and middle income families find reasonable housing. Yes on Prop 1.
Prop 2: Save more in the rainy day fund
California’s rainy day fund established in 2014 requires the state to put money away in good years. Required deposits currently stop once the fund reaches 10% of annual General Fund tax revenue. Prop 2 would raise that threshold to 20% and require larger deposits when tax revenue surges.
There are a bunch of formulas here, but to keep it simple: this will make the state save more of windfall revenue in good years so we have something to tap into during leaner times. I’m a yes because I think forced saving is needed to protect against the oftentimes questionable spending of politicians who don’t think about down years when the state is flush.
In fact, I helped pass a similar measure locally in San Francisco that established a rainy day reserve fund, and I think it has been a great success in practice. Particularly in a state like California, where IPOs and other large capital gains events can send tax revenue soaring, we should put more of that excess away for when the pendulum swings the other way. Yes on Prop 2.
Prop 3: Make the temporary income tax increase permanent
Despite its official name, the California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act, this isn’t a new initiative for children and health care. The main thing it does is remove the expiration date on an existing tax passed to support the school system. Originally passed in 2012 as a temporary tax, it was extended in 2016 to go through 2030. This would make it permanent.
So Prop 3 doesn’t raise today’s tax rates; it keeps the higher rates from expiring. I’m generally an anti-tax voter because I believe the state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. However, I also prioritize education so I’m mixed on this. On one hand I don’t like the precedent of passing “temporary taxes,” extending them, and then making them permanent. On the other hand, this is an existing tax people are already paying so its not a tax increase and the consequence for the already struggling school system if this revenue were to disappear would be significant.
I understand voting no on principle given how this evolved, but in practice I just can’t swallow the dire impacts on millions of kids in school systems that would bear the burden. Yes on Prop 3.
Prop 4: Allow public financing of political campaigns
California generally bans taxpayer money from funding political campaigns, with exceptions for certain charter cities, including San Francisco. Prop 4 would lift that ban. It doesn’t actually create a public financing program or allocate money to one, it would just let state and local governments establish their own programs.
I’m against taxpayer dollars being spent on political campaigns. We have countless unfunded priorities, and giving money to incumbent or aspiring politicians is not high on my list.
San Francisco already has a public financing program and frankly, I don’t think it has done much to justify the millions of taxpayer dollars blown on political campaigns that could have gone towards critical needs. No on Prop 4.
Prop 5: Change how recalled state officials are replaced
When a recall of a state official goes on the ballot, voters are generally asked two questions: should this person be recalled, and who should replace them? Prop 5 would make it just an up-or-down vote on the recall, with no replacement chosen on the same ballot.
If the official is recalled, the usual vacancy rules would apply, meaning an appointment or a separate election. For the governor, the lieutenant governor would take over either until an election or for the rest of the term, depending on when the recall happens.
The problem with the current system is that a crowded field can produce a replacement with only a small share of the vote. Someone could actually win an important state office with fewer votes than the recalled official received from people who wanted to keep them. That’s a pretty strange way to choose who runs the state. Yes on Prop 5.
Prop 37: Help middle income families buy homes
Prop 37 would let California’s Housing Finance Agency issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to help middle-income households buy newly built homes. A qualifying buyer would put up at least 3% of the purchase price, and the program would lend up to another 17%, with a traditional mortgage covering the remaining 80%. This is a loan, not a giveaway.
These are revenue bonds, repaid by borrowers, not general obligation bonds repaid from the state’s General Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects no direct state or local cost.
Additionally, Prop 37 tackles an important impediment to home construction: construction-defect lawsuits. In California, builders of homes/condos can be sued for up to 10 years after construction for defects. Predatory lawyers have seized on this and rally condo associations to sue builders right before the deadline to earn hefty contingency fees. This is a big reason condo construction in CA lags so far behind our counterparts as builders choose to build apartments over condos (apartments carry only a 4 year window to sue).
To address this, Prop 37 contains a framework by which builders can fix any defects without legal action, and when legal action is pursued, attorney contingency fees are capped. Note that this new framework only applies to homes bought through this new proposed CalHFA program, which is great for the program, I just hope we see similar reform for all homes in the near future.
Middle-income families are often a forgotten group: priced out of market-rate housing while also being disqualified from affordable housing programs. I’ve been a strong proponent of supporting this demographic become homeowners for a long time. This would help without a direct bill to the state. Yes on Prop 37.
Prop 38: Borrow billions for immunology research
This one is ridiculous. On the surface, it’s an $8.4 billion bond for immunology research, including work on cancer, Alzheimer’s, and heart disease. About half would go to just one research institute and the other half to competitive grants.
Here’s the catch. Billionaire Gary Michelson is a major funder of the measure and co-founded the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which you may have guessed, is the one institute that stands to get a cool $4.2 billion if this passes.
For me, that’s disqualifying. If you want to fund your institute, reaching into taxpayers’ pockets for billions through a disingenuous ballot proposition is absurd. Repaying the bond would cost the state $500–$600 million a year for about 20 years. No on Prop 38.
Prop 39: Require identification for voting
I’ll spend a little extra time on this one because this is pretty politically charged. Prop 39 would require government-issued ID (most likely driver’s licenses) for in-person voting and the last four digits of that ID number on mail-ballot envelopes. It would also require election officials to make “best efforts” to verify voters’ citizenship using government data. The issue this is supposedly trying to solve is in-person voter impersonation and given the current political discussion, more acutely non-citizens voting. I see both as worthy goals to preserve the integrity of our electoral system, but this as a lazy measure that doesn’t accomplish real reform.
The way it stands now, when people register to vote they just check a box on the registration form to affirm their citizenship status under penalty of perjury. They can then show up to a polling place and give their name and address which matches their voter registration in order to cast their vote. Alternatively, they can use a ballot that is mailed to their home which they sign and that signature must match their registration signature. Notice that nowhere in this process is there any verification of one’s citizenship, the system relies on people attesting to their citizenship. Prop 39 seeks to stop non-citizens that may be registered from actually voting, however it does nothing to that end because a driver’s license, or even a social security number, are not proof of citizenship. Non-citizens have driver’s licenses and permanent residents (green card holders) have social security numbers. So requiring this ID system would do nothing to verify citizenship, and the only part of Prop 39 that could address this issue is a vague reference to election workers using “best efforts” to validate citizenship. No laid out system, no rules, no policy for such an important topic, just a lazy one liner that leaves the main thrust of this measure fully unresolved.
A serious measure to address the issue would start upstream, at the registration process, whereby a detailed citizenship verification process happens when one registers to vote instead of relying on people just checking a box. This is what many other countries do and it makes perfect sense as the issue should be solved on the voter rolls, not attempting to do it individually for each voter on Election Day.
So really the only thing this measure would actually do is stop voter impersonation, i.e. someone showing up to a polling place and giving someone else’s name and address and casting a vote as them, or if someone were to somehow get another’s mail-in ballot and match the other person’s signature on that ballot. By most accounts these are incredibly rare occurrences. Note this stronger system would mostly affect only in-person voters because the current system of signature matching on mail in ballots severely hampers impersonation even if someone were to get another’s ballot. Seeing as 4 in 5 California voters use the mail-in system as opposed to showing up at polls on Election Day, we are ultimately talking about stopping a rare occurrence in a small segment of the voting population.
Ultimately, I do not think we should create road blocks at every polling place across the state that will undoubtedly result in valid voters not being able to vote because they forgot their id at home or they wrote a digit wrong/sloppily on their mail-in ballot. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also says the ongoing costs of enforcement could be up to hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
I would support a well thought out voter reform measure as mentioned above, this is not it. No on Prop 39.
Prop 40: The billionaires tax
This is another one you’ve probably heard a lot about. It would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026. 90% of the revenue would go to health care and the rest would go to education, food assistance, and administration.
Wherever you stand on taxing high earners, I think this is bad policy. The services this measure is seeking to fund have ongoing costs, and one-time money doesn’t solve that problem. The revenue could be collected and spent over several years, but eventually it runs out. Then what?
Meanwhile, the damage to the state’s tax base would last much longer. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects tens of billions in temporary revenue, but also a possible ongoing income-tax loss of $1 billion a year as billionaires and other high income earners leave California. Trading a temporary windfall for years of lost revenue, the extent of which is unknown and I suspect much worse than is being estimated, is a bad move.
In fact, groups representing some of the very services this tax is would fund actually oppose it, including the California Medical Association, California Children’s Hospital Association, and California Teachers Association. Governor Gavin Newsom also opposes it.
As mentioned, I’m generally an anti-tax voter, but my objection here goes beyond tax policy. A temporary pile of money is not a long-term budget plan, especially if we drive away people whose income taxes help pay the bills every year. No on Prop 40.
Prop 41 Require audits of new tax programs
This would require the State Auditor to review programs that would receive money from a new or increased state special tax proposed by voter initiative. A special tax is a one whereby the revenue from it is earmarked for a specific purpose and cannot be spent on anything else.
Prop 41 would also restrict attempts to keep new tax revenue outside the Gann limit, the state’s constitutional spending cap. Special taxes aren’t automatically exempt from that limit now.
This is a good government measure, but there’s a political purpose here too. If both this and Prop 40 pass and Prop 41 gets more votes, it would block Prop 40 from taking effect. So its essentially a poison pill aimed at the billionaire tax.
Regardless of the politics, I welcome more scrutiny of the state’s too-many-to-count programs. Before asking us for more money, show us where the money you already get is going and whether you could spend it better. That doesn’t seem like an outrageous request irrespective of if this is needed to counter Prop 40. Yes on Prop 41.
Prop 42: Ban new taxes on personal property
This would eliminate the state’s ability to tax simple ownership of things, including “paper gains” on things like financial portfolios, retirement accounts and other assets. It would also bar the state from passing new taxes that would apply retroactively before the tax was enacted.
This measure has the same political angle to it as Prop 41 in that if both Prop 40 and Prop 42 pass, and Prop 42 gets more votes, it would invalidate Prop 40’s provisions. So while this is another political counter, I once again agree with the core principle of this.
Prop 42 does not change how capital gains taxes are applied, the tax structure all remains the same, it simply means the state can’t tax things just because you own them when you haven’t sold or otherwise turned those assets into actual money in your pocket (which would still be taxed as capital gains). Aside from the huge challenges with how to value and tax paper gains or other assets people own, I strongly oppose any such tax on principle and Prop 42 would shut that door. Yes on Prop 42.
Prop 43: Require two thirds approval for local special taxes
This proposition would require a two-thirds (66%) majority of voters to approve any new special tax. Again, a special tax is one that doesn’t flow through the General Fund where the money can be used as needed, but is instead earmarked for a special purpose that it must be spent on no matter what other needs exist. This proposal would not affect general taxes like the former, those would still just need a simple 50% majority to pass.
In fact, since 1978 the two-thirds majority has always been law for special taxes because they limit how the money can be used so they require broad based support for the cause. Then came a 2017 California Supreme Court case (known as Upland) which ruled that if a special tax is put on the ballot by signature gathering, it would need just 50% to pass (not 66%), however if legislators proposed the special tax it would still need 66%.
Fundamentally, I don’t think how a measure got on a ballot should dictate how easy it is to pass, it is either important enough to need a supermajority or it isn’t. Also, signature gathering is not the grassroots effort it sounds like, most all signature gathering efforts are funded by paid signature gatherers so this just rewards the deepest pocket campaigns with an easier path to victory and that’s not how it should go. At the end of the day, I support the notion that special taxes should only be approved if a large majority of voters think its important enough to limit those funds to a specific cause, irrespective of how it got on the ballot. Yes on Prop 43.
Prop 44: The Clinic Funding Accountability & Transparency Act
This is frankly preposterous. Prop 44 is the fourth attempt of the labor union SEIU-UHW to abuse the ballot process in an effort to strong arm employers in their labor disputes. You may remember my similar outrage at their previous proposals to attack dialysis clinics to serve their own needs at the expense of dialysis patients who would have seen their local clinics shutdown if those measures passed. Now, the union has turned its sites to nonprofit community clinics which they are trying to unionize.
This ridiculous proposal intentionally sounds nice on the surface, requiring community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on their mission. The problem is there are many things a community clinic needs to spend money on that simply don’t fit in 10% of its revenue and it leaves these clinics open to massive penalties that Prop 44 dictates would be equal to the shortfall in spending. Estimates say first year fines could top $1.7B as most clinics average about 80%. It would be a catastrophe for community clinics, which are a critical safety net, at the worst time as deep Medicaid cuts have already pushed these clinics to the edge. Needless to say, the medical establishment strongly opposes this proposition, including the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood. Despicable behavior by this union who I think should face a consequence for their continual abuse of the ballot process. Strong no on Prop 44.
Prop 45: Speed up environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure
The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, requires agencies to review the environmental impact of proposed projects. That serves a worthy purpose. The problem is a notoriously long and arduous process that opponents can use to stall and ultimately kill projects. Even after a project is approved, the CEQA lawsuits can keep coming.
Prop 45 would let qualifying projects in eight categories use a new set of rules with tighter timelines: housing, clean energy, water, public health, public safety, broadband, education, and transportation.
The changes include firmer deadlines for agency decisions and court challenges, and generally allowing the rest of a project to move forward if only one part has a CEQA problem. One disputed piece shouldn’t automatically bring the whole thing to a halt.
We need to address legitimate environmental problems without giving opponents endless opportunities to stall a project until the builder gives up. Yes on Prop 45.