By admin 
Californians will vote on 14 ballot measures in November’s general election, making essential decisions about issues like housing, healthcare, taxation and elections.
Read more Gavin Newsom signs bill distinguishing e-bikes and e-motos in California
Ballot measures can enact new laws, change existing laws or determine whether to adopt policy changes proposed by the Legislature. This year’s ballot contains the most propositions since 2018 and is likely to draw hundreds of millions of dollars in spending from interest groups.
Here are the 14 measures:
Proposition 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act would allow the state to borrow $11.25 billion in bonds to support housing affordability programs for veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, low- and middle-income families, essential workers, the homeless and other vulnerable populations. Estimations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that the measure will provide 40,000 low- to moderate-income Californians with down payment assistance and devote $1.25 billion to loans for veterans, some of whom may not otherwise be able to qualify for a mortgage.
Proposition 2: The Save For California’s Future Act would expand California’s Rainy Day Fund, which supports education, healthcare, public safety and other essential services during economic downturns. The proposition would increase the total amount of the fund from 10% to 20% of the state’s general fund. The fund is mainly composed of income, corporation and sales tax dollars. Democrats say that the measure would help California absorb losses sustained as Congressional Republicans cut healthcare and food assistance funding, while Republicans say Prop. 2 would spur wasteful spending by politicians.
Proposition 3: The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act would make permanent existing tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 annually. Keeping the tax, which is currently set to expire in 2031, in place would maintain between $5 billion and $15 billion in state income tax revenue. Proponents of the measure, such as the California Teachers Association and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, say it would prevent cuts to education and healthcare funding. The proposition’s opponents, which include the California Taxpayers Association and the Family Business Association of California, say making the tax permanent would reduce politicians’ motivation to prevent waste, fraud and overspending.
Proposition 4: The California Fair Elections Act would repeal California’s ban on the use of public funds to finance political campaigns. The measure, which would not apply to elections for federal offices, would impose restrictions on how the funds may be used, including a requirement that recipients demonstrate a base of public support. Proponents of the measure say it will prevent reliance on wealthy donors to fund political campaigns at the state and local levels, while opponents allege it would constitute a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.
Proposition 5: This measure is a constitutional amendment that would change how recall elections are conducted. Currently, a recall election determines whether a politician should be recalled from office and selects their replacement. Prop. 5 would sever the two decisions, mandating that a position remain vacant after a recall until a substitute is chosen. Proponents of the measure argue that it will prevent partisan “re-dos” of elections through recall votes, which tend to see less turnout than general elections. Top Republican lawmakers oppose the measure, claiming that separating the two votes would allow political insiders to gain leverage in the race to replace the seat.
» Election news in your inbox: Sign up for our election newsletter here
Proposition 37: The Second Mortgage Homebuyer Program and Revenue Bond Initiative would offer mortgage assistance to homeowners who earn less than twice their area’s median income and make at least a 3% down payment. The measure would authorize up to $25 billion in bonds to fund the program. No groups have formally come out against the proposal.
Proposition 38: The Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. The Alzheimer’s Association and other supporters of the measure say it could help fund breakthrough treatments for conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, cancer and heart disease, while opponents raised concerns that the funds needed to support the research would constitute a burden on taxpayers. Half of the $8.4 billion would go to one research institute affiliated with a University of California campus and selected by the California Department of Public Health. The other half would be used for competitive research grants.
Read more Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoes bill to bar former ICE officers from California jobs
Proposition 39: The Voter Identification, Citizenship Verification, and Registered Voter List Administration Initiative would create more stringent voter ID requirements. If passed, the measure would require that voters present a government-issued ID to vote in person or provide the last four digits of their ID for their mail-in ballot to be counted. Proponents of the measure say it would increase voters’ trust in elections. However, the proposal’s opponents say it could discourage eligible voters who lack the requisite identification, risking further alienation of underrepresented groups from political decision-making.
Proposition 40: The Billionaire Tax Act would enact a one-time 5% tax on Californians whose net worth exceeds $1 billion. The tax is retroactive, meaning it would apply to anyone who was a California resident as of Jan. 1, 2026, a provision intended to prevent people from leaving the state to avoid the tax. Over 90% of these funds would go towards bolstering the state’s healthcare system. The proposal’s supporters — which include SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — say it is a response to H.R. 1’s passage in Congress last year, which formalized major cuts to healthcare funding nationwide. Opponents such as Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Teachers Association have voiced concerns that the tax would drive billionaires out of California, hurting the state’s future tax collections and ability to fund state services.
Proposition 41: The Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act would implement pre-election audits for ballot initiatives proposing special taxes. It would also require state laws and ballot initiatives that enact new special taxes after Jan. 1, 2026 to undergo state audits every four years, effectively undermining the proposed billionaire tax in Prop. 40. The measure has more than $63 million in financial backing from Building a Better California, which has been heavily funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and a handful of other wealthy tech entrepreneurs. Backers say it will help rein in wasteful Sacramento spending, while critics like the SEIU-UHW argue it’s a “billionaire-funded smoke screen” designed to unwind Prop. 40.
Proposition 42: The Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act would amend the California Constitution to prohibit new taxes on personal property and other financial assets enacted after Jan. 1, 2026. The measure would also bar retroactive taxes from taking effect, nullifying the billionaire tax proposed in Prop. 40. Like Prop. 41, Prop. 42 is heavily funded by wealthy Californians who may be subject to the billionaire tax. Supporters argue the measure will help protect ordinary Californians from future wealth taxes, while the SEIU-UHW argues the measure is a billionaire-backed poison pill whose real goal is to fight that tax.
Proposition 43: The Local Taxes Limitation Amendment would increase the threshold to pass certain local government taxes from a simple majority — more than 50% — to two-thirds approval. The measure’s sponsor, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, says the proposition would prevent unpopular tax increases from passing in local elections, while its opponents like California Professional Firefighters say the measure would dilute voters’ electoral power and limit the funding available to public services like firefighting, education and healthcare.
Proposition 44: The Clinic Funding Accountability and Transparency Act would require certain private nonprofit healthcare clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue on patient services. The measure’s primary backer, SEIU-UHW, argues the clinics are misspending funds on items like executive compensation that should go towards patient care. Opponents to the measure such as the California Medical Association and the California Primary Care Association have said it would divert funds from clinics’ essential staff and resources, including nurse managers, translation services, insurance assistance and community education.
Proposition 45: The Building an Affordable California Act would expedite the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act. Proponents of the measure, which is sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, say it would shorten an often lengthy process, allowing building projects to be completed more quickly. However, those against the proposal, such as the Coalition for Clean Air and Clean Water Action, say it would have negative environmental impacts. Both sides have also debated whether the changes would apply to data centers, as critics claim.
Read more Newsom says deal on utilities’ wildfire liability may fall to next governor