My 2026 California General Election Voter Guide
I try to provide a succinct, yet accurate, description of the proposition, then perhaps some of my own commentary and finally how I will be voting.
If you are interested in my bona fides: I have been working in and around the California state legislature for the last 15 years. I have been a legislative aide, legislative consultant, deputy district director, government relations consultant, and government relations manager. My expertise is in TK12 public education, teacher credentialing, and higher education policy.
If you’ve read this before then you already know my biases. If not, I’m a registered Democrat and someone who finds themselves more and more on the left of the political spectrum. So, that is what you are going to see in my recommendations below. Oh, and I’d get your ballot in early, especially if you decide to mail it. Given comments from our President about mail-in ballots, I don’t know if I completely trust the USPS with my ballot. If you do decide to mail it make sure you track it through your county elections office to make sure they got it and counted it. If they don’t you can still vote in person on election day on a provisional ballot. I’ll be dropping my ballot off at one of the drop boxes.
Because God truly hates us, or because governing California is akin to operating a barely working, kludged together Rube Goldberg machine, there are FOURTEEN propositions on the Nov 3, 2026 ballot. The state’s official voter guide, printed on thin newsprint, is over a 1/4 inch thick and repeatedly directs you to websites to find additional information. I suppose complaining about any of this won’t make the task in front of us any easier, but it does make me hate direct democracy a little more each time, so we might as well dive in!
Finally, don’t go telling me in the comments about why I am wrong or what you think. That is what your Facebook page is for.
I hope you find this guide useful. Don’t forget to vote!
A note about Props. 3, 40, 41, and 42 - each of the propositions contains "conflicting measures" language. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) notes in the Official Voter Guide that if Props. 41 or 42 gets more yes votes than Prop. 40, courts could find them in conflict and Prop. 40 could be voided even if it passes. Prop. 3 has similar language for measures affecting personal income tax rates. Prop. 40's own text says its provisions would prevail if it gets more yes votes than a conflicting measure.
Proposition 1
Authorizes $11.25 billion in bonds: $10 billion general obligation bonds repaid from the General Fund plus $1.25 billion for CalVet home loans for veterans (repaid by veterans' loan payments). The money would go to a bunch of state housing programs, including $7.2 billion for affordable multifamily housing, $1.1 billion for home ownership programs, $500 million for infrastructure for housing developments (think water, sewage, parks, etc.), $450 million to build and renovate farmworker housing, $350 million for University of California and California State University for affordable student housing, and the remaining funds for grants to California Tribes and local pilot programs aimed at lower the cost of building housing.
The state regularly uses bonds to fund affordable housing. Voters approved an affordable housing bond just two years ago in 2024. The last veterans home-loan bond was in 2018. The LAO estimates that this bond would cost the state an additional $500 to 600 million per year for about 25 years from the State’s General Fund (~0.25% of the budget). The state currently spends about $6 billion a year from the General Fund (roughly 3% of General Fund revenue) repaying bonds. The veterans portion has no direct state costs.
My vote - Yes
Proposition 2
Raises the cap on the Budget Stabilization Account (one of the State’s Rainy Day Funds) from 10% to 20% of General Fund taxes. It would also force the state to save more when tax revenue from investment gains is high, stretches the required extra debt payments from 2030 out to 2040, and widens what they can be used for. California has all sorts of impositions on how and when it can spend money. One of these, the ‘state appropriations limit’ restricts how much tax revenue the state can spend. Right now, money put into reserves counts toward that limit. Prop. 2 would change it so the limit only kicks in when the money comes back out of reserves. Voters created the rainy day fund in 2014. The state deposits 0.75% of revenue plus capital-gains "spikes"; deposits stop at 10%. Money can be withdrawn in a budget emergency. The state currently has about $20 billion in other reserves.
My vote - Yes
Proposition 3
Makes permanent the top income tax rates that California voters approved in 2012 and extended in 2016. Those rates are set to expire after 2030. They only hit income above roughly $371,000 for single filers ($742,000 for joint filers). Requires that 89% of this revenue goes to K-12 education and the remaining 11% to community colleges.
We all approved this back in 2012 and again in 2016. I don't see this as controversial. Looking around I don't see anything getting cheaper around here. These funds are needed to keep our schools functioning and our classrooms staffed with highly trained and prepared teachers.
My vote - Yes
Proposition 4
Gets rid of the current ban on using public money for political campaigns. Allowing the state and local governments to create public financing programs for elections. Would prohibit public funding programs from using funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Candidates who accept public money would be prohibited from using these funds for legal defense costs, or repaying personal loans. Finally, triples the maximum fines for illegal foreign campaign contributions. This proposition doesn't create a public campaign financing program, it only allows them. (A few charter cities, like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland and Berkeley, already provide public money for some campaigns.)
My vote: Yes
Proposition 5
Currently, in a recall vote voters are asked two questions: remove? and who replaces? Since 1913, 11 state recalls have qualified to go on the ballot and six officials have been removed. The 2003 recall had 135 candidates, the 2021 had 46. If this proposition passed it would remove the "who replaces them" question from recall elections. If the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would become Governor and would finish out the term. If the recall happens early in the term, the Lieutenant Governor would serve until voters pick a replacement at a later statewide election. Other statewide offices would be filled by existing vacancy rules. Generally, that means the Governor appoints someone or there's a special election.
This makes much more sense than the current system, which requires multiple explanations. And even then, in post election interviews a number of voters admit to not understanding the ballot they filled out. And frankly it has become a bit of a circus that last two times there was a recall vote for the Governor. This way maybe now the Lt. Governor position could actually MEAN something!
My vote - Yes
Proposition 37
Lets California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund "middle-class home ownership loans" to qualified California residents covering up to 17% of the price of a newly built home (roughly a home that costs between $1 and 1.5 million, by county). To qualify, borrowers must have lived in California for at least a year, live in the home, earn no more than 200% of the area median income, and put at least 3% down from their own funds (not a grant or loan). Includes consumer protections (fixed rate, no prepayment penalty, fee limits) and a "qualified builder option" with higher labor standards in exchange for modified construction-defect (right-to-repair) rules and a 30% cap on attorney contingency fees in covered cases. CalHFA already offers down-payment assistance. Revenue bonds are repaid by users, not the General Fund. No direct state or local costs.
My vote - Yes
Proposition 38
Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds. Half goes to a single nonprofit research institute (affiliated with a UC campus) and the other half to competitive grants to California public or nonprofit universities and institutions. At least half of these bond funds ($4.2 billion) has to go toward cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's research. Grant recipients would be required to sell resulting drugs or technology in California at least 20% below the national average price. The state would receive 10% of licensing revenue until the bond is repaid.
Voters have approved two stem cell research bonds before: Prop. 71 in 2004 and Prop. 14 in 2020 (about $8.5 billion in bonds total). Most medical R&D funding is federal and private. The costs to the state are similar to those for Prop. 1 above: $500–600 million per year for about 20 years from the General Fund. Revenue offsets are uncertain and could take decades.
This one was dreamed up by one guy, billionaire Gary Michelson, and he's the same guy who paid to gather the signatures for it. Half of the bond money would go to a single unnamed nonprofit institute, and according to UCLA the only institute that meets the measure's very specific criteria is the one Michelson co-founded and chairs. He and that institute's other co-founder, Meyer Luskin, are also the two big spenders behind the campaign. This is grifting at an epic scale!
My vote - No
Proposition 39
Would require in-person voters to show government-issued ID. Mail voters must register a government ID number and write its last four digits on the ballot envelope, and any mismatch would invalidate the ballot. Requires officials to use "best efforts" to verify citizenship and annually report the percentage of verified voters by county. State provides a free voter ID card on request. State Auditor audits compliance in odd-numbered years. Legislature must pass implementing laws.
Right now, voters are identified by their signature. Elections officials check the signature on mail ballots, but in-person signatures generally aren't verified. Voter registration requires a driver's license, state ID, or last four digits of SSN. About 13 million of the roughly 16 million people who voted in 2024 did it by mail. Only citizens may vote in state and federal elections. ‘Voter Fraud’ is a shockingly rare crime, especially at the individual ballot level. All these restrictions would just prevent voting. This is a solution in search of a problem and serves the same purpose as poll taxes and literacy tests have in the past to suppress the vote.
My vote - No
Proposition 40
Imposes a one-time tax of up to 5% on the net worth of California residents worth $1 billion or more. Covers businesses, securities, art, collectibles, intellectual property and excludes directly held real estate and most pensions/retirement accounts. Ninety percent of the money would go to health care, and the remaining 10% to education and food assistance. The money would also be exempt from the state spending limit, Prop. 98 (the school funding formula) and other requirements.
California doesn't tax financial assets like stock until they are sold. This is how many of the very rich avoid paying much in taxes. They take out rotating loans on the financial assets they own, since that money is not income it is never taxed. California has a few hundred billionaires. Every billionaire is a policy failure at some level. The argument against this wealth tax is that billionaires would leave California if this tax was enacted and that might be the case but seeing as I don’t think they’re providing any value to us now, I don't see any of them leaving as a great loss. (For fairness: opponents claim a departure wave would cost the state about $25 billion in lost revenue, while the LAO estimates the ongoing income tax loss at under $1 billion a year.) Besides, the super rich don’t seem to have any problems spending obscene amounts of money on trying to kill this proposition and support their own. Over $240 million on Props. 40, 41, and 42 alone last time I looked?!
My vote: Yes
Proposition 41
Requires the State Auditor to audit the programs that new special taxes would pay for (before a voter-initiated special tax goes on the ballot, and every four years after for new special taxes), and bans any new state tax from being exempt from the state spending limit. The folks spending millions against Prop. 40 are spending millions to promote this and Prop. 42. The goal is to cause enough confusion so that Prop. 40 doesn’t pass. It’s just a bonus that if one or both of them do pass, tying the hands of every future California generation in trying to raise enough funds to provide public services.
My vote: No
Proposition 42
Would prohibit any new state taxes (enacted on or after Jan 1, 2026) on ownership of personal property, including retirement accounts, financial assets, business interests, and intellectual property. Also, bans retroactive taxes, with a few emergency carve-outs, and it has a conflict clause with Prop. 40. The folks spending millions against Prop. 40 are spending millions to promote this and Prop. 41. The goal is to cause enough confusion so that Prop. 40 doesn’t pass. It’s just a bonus that if one or both of them do pass, tying the hands of every future California generation in trying to raise enough funds to provide public service. This is being advertised as protecting retirees' savings, but that is a smoke screen. Retirement accounts are not taxed, not even by Prop. 40 (unless your Roth IRAs have a cumulative value of over $10 million, a problem many of us wish we had!) that could be done in a dozen ways that doesn’t tie the hands of Californians forever.
As I mentioned up above the super rich don’t make income like you or I do. They’ve created a system for themselves that allows them to financially benefit from their stock assets without ever having to actually sell them. It’s an indictment to our society that we have allowed this to go on for so long as it has. If Prop. 42 were to become law it would constitutionally prohibit the Legislature from even exploring alternative tax frameworks for the wealthiest people on the planet.
My vote: No
Proposition 43
Starting Jan 1, 2027, local special taxes proposed by voter initiative would need two-thirds approval instead of a simple majority. It also bars local governments and local voters from creating new property taxes beyond the ones already allowed. Right now, special taxes that a local government puts on the ballot need two-thirds approval, but because of recent court decisions, ones put on the ballot by citizen signatures pass with a simple majority. Once again we see a desire to tie the hands of citizens and future Californians. This measure is on the ballot because the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association used California’s initiative process to blackmail the Legislature into putting it here. Does it seem wild to you that in California we could pass laws that strip the rights away from people or even take lives and that would require merely a majority vote but if you want to tax that same person (for a dedicated purpose, anyway) it would require a 2/3 majority vote? Why? Why is the value of property more important than that of Life and Liberty?
My vote: No
Proposition 44
Requires nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers, or similar such centers, to spend at least 90% of revenue on "program services." Clinics below 90% pay a penalty equal to the shortfall, held in escrow for 5 years (refundable if they comply, otherwise used for clinic workforce programs). The Attorney General would define qualifying expenses. Allows the Department of Public Health to grant waivers. Patients could sue clinics for breach of charitable trust, and knowingly misreporting would become a crime. There are about 2,000 safety-net clinics in California, mostly private nonprofits. They currently report spending about 80% of revenue on services on average. They report to the IRS and state.
This is on the ballot because a union got mad because a bill they sponsored in Sacramento died last year. They raised the stakes by using the initiative process to put this proposition on the ballot. And then, if I have this correct, tried to threaten use the proposition as a threat to force the state legislature to act. That appears not to have worked. So here we all are now. If it were to pass it would give the union a very powerful lever to use against management since, as I read it, their wages would count toward that 90% threshold in the proposition. The vast majority of these clinics serve rural and/or poor communities and there are concerns from the clinics, as well as doctors and nurses that these levels would close many of these clinics.
This seems like high stakes dick waving that got out of hand. I’m pro-union but the supporters are all alone out here and eliminating these clinics for vulnerable populations is too much.
My vote: No
Proposition 45
Would create an optional fast track under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects like housing, water, clean energy, health facilities, fire & police stations, wildfire risk reduction, broadband, education facilities and transportation. Creates binding deadlines (365 days for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)). Allows applicants to offer only one alternative. Limits tribal consultation to federally recognized tribes. Puts caps on public comment periods. Limits what courts can review and the remedies available to them. And more. So much more. This thing is 17 pages long?! Seventeen pages of double columned dense legalese. I don't have time for that. It's obscene.
CEQA requires agencies to review environmental impacts, often via an EIR, consider alternatives, and take public comment; people can sue. But, CEQA is one of the most contentious laws around and the folks on both sides of the argument have valid points. Everyone wants a clean environment and we all want people to be able to afford to live, and die, in California if they want to. And it is true that the CEQA process is used to slow down and even stop completely any development.
This is a weird one because there are progressive and conservative think tanks that are looking at this proposition and raising concerns?! I’m not seeing any of the YIMBY groups I would expect to see in support of this proposition if they actually felt it would help with the housing crisis in California. The supporters are a rogue’s gallery of billionaires, builders, for-profit power companies, realtors, and the Chamber of Commerce.
My Vote - I’m leaning ‘No,’ but I certainly understand people who are voting yes.
a Rant
That’s it. If you haven’t had enough or just like rants, I have a few more words to say. I am skeptical of two things on this ballot: very large sums of money from a handful of billionaires, and ballot initiatives qualified by signature, especially ones that rewrite the state Constitution. Money poisons everything. The more we have had of it in our politics the more warping the effect it has had on our civil society. The state of our democracy is ‘sick and dying.’ It is so bad today that some of the richest among us don't even pretend to respect our form of government. Some of them go to conferences, appear on podcasts, and proudly say in interviews that they prefer some form of autocracy.
As for the initiative process, and direct democracy nice ideas but the implementation is wanting. Maybe at one point signature petitions could be used as a proxy for citizenship interest or engagement. But, those days are long gone. Signature gatherers are often paid by the signature (that's still legal in California, since governors have vetoed every ban the Legislature has passed), and some will say almost anything to get a person to sign. The only limit is how much the people behind the proposition are willing to spend. If you are willing to spend millions you will find enough people to sign. Nine of the 14 measures came from signature petitions, and most of them are hard to undo. Props. 3, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45 were all put on the ballot through signature drives. Of these, Props. 3, 39, 40, 41 and 42 amend the Constitution, so only another vote of the people can change them. Others are statutes with tight amendment rules. Prop. 40 and Prop. 45 can be amended by the Legislature only by a two-thirds vote and only if the change "furthers the purposes" of the measure (who gets to decide what that means?) Prop. 38 bars changes to how bond money is allocated. Prop. 44 allows amendments only "to further the purposes of this act." Legislative measures are not exempt from criticism, but they come out of hearings, amendments and floor votes that initiatives skip. A lot of these propositions try to unfairly restrict the actions of future Californians to the benefit of some Californians today, this sort of entrenchment is fundamentally anti-democratic and so much of California's esoteric governance model exists because of California voters in the past, many now long dead, continuing to impose their will on Californians today.
Prop. 37: The Realtors and Building a Better California supply most of the yes money. Prop. 38: Gary K. Michelson and entities funded by him account for most of the roughly $61 million raised for the yes side. Prop. 39: Richard Uihlein gave $17 million of the $22 million raised by the yes side. Props. 40, 41 and 42: Building a Better California, whose top donors are Sergey Brin and L. John Doerr III, has given about $244.65 million to committees on these three measures ($88.5 million against Prop. 40, $58.35 million for Prop 41, and $97.8 million for Prop. 42). Prop. 44: The yes side is funded entirely by one union, SEIU-UHW, which also provides nearly all of the money for the Prop. 40 yes campaign.
I hate billionaires but I also don’t think it's great that unions are spending such huge amounts of the dues they collect from their members on initiatives either... I can understand it and they’re probably the only organizations that have that sort of money but it all seems so wasteful.
Props. 40, 41, and 42 each contain clauses voiding conflicting measures that get fewer yes votes. Props. 41, 42 and 45 each also contain a "legal defense" section creating a continuous appropriation from the General Fund to pay independent counsel if the Governor and Attorney General decline to defend the measure. Prop 45 requires that a bill amending it be published for 12 business days before passage. These are choices that tie the hands of future elected officials and courts, and voters have little ability to weigh them from a voting booth, nor understand the long term effects their votes may have on a future that is unknown.
Rant over.
Any errors are intentional, actually.