Democracy Derby - 2026 California Props

Proposition: Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

Why is it on the ballot: California needs more money for housing in order to help the state’s more than 180,000 homeless residents, as well as those who pay more than they can afford in rent and those who can’t afford to purchase a home.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote supports authorizing the state to issue $11.25 billion in bonds to fund income-qualified housing programs, such as the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and the veteran home loan program.

Proponents Say: Time and time again, we say that housing affordability and homelessness are top priorities, so it’s incumbent on us to put our money where our mouth is and invest in housing programs that have proven their ability to deliver real results. What we can’t afford is to wait.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, Gov. Gavin Newsom, The California Apartment Association, AFL-CIO California.

No Means: A "no" vote opposes authorizing the state to issue $11.25 billion in bonds to fund income-qualified housing programs, such as the Multifamily Housing Program, the CalHome Program, and the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program, and the veteran home loan program.

Opponents Say: The bill uses veterans to drum up support while actually doing little to serve them. Also being critized is the wisdom of borrowing more money to pay for housing without addressing the underlying reasons it’s so expensive to build.
Who is for No: Some Republican state lawmakers.

Click here to learn about more.

Prop 2 - Raise limit on rainy day fund deposits

Proposition: Increases California’s Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns.

Fiscal Impact: State budget reserves would be higher.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote supports this amendment to increase the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) cap from 10% to 20% of estimated general fund proceeds of taxes; increase deposits into the BSA by counting capital gains revenue above 10% of general fund proceeds of taxes at 150% of its value in the deposit calculation; extend through the 2039-40 fiscal year the requirement that half of those funds be appropriated for debts and liabilities, and add federal loans to the state's Unemployment Fund to the eligible obligations; exclude deposits into the BSA and the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account from the Gann Limit, while counting withdrawals against it; and provide that the governor's May budget revision constitutes a proclamation of a budget emergency when the conditions for one exist.

Proponents Say: California’s tax revenue is volatile and relies heavily on the stock market. Supporters say raising the ceiling would allow the state to save more when the economy is booming, building a stronger reserve for economic downturns.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, Legislative Democrats, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

No Means: A "no" vote opposes this amendment to change rules governing the state's rainy day fund, extra debt repayment, and fiscal state of emergencies.

Opponents Say: The state’s reserves can be used by politicians as a “slush fund,” and the measure would allow lawmakers to withhold more tax revenue without triggering the spending limit so as to avoid refunds to taxpayers.
Who is for No: Reform California, Legislative Republicans.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

ProP 3 - MAKE taxes on higher earners permanent to fund education AND healthcare

Proposition: Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education.

Fiscal Impact: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.

Yes Means: Amending the state constitution to indefinitely extend the top marginal tax rates (ranging from 10.3% to 12.3%) set to expire in 2031 on single filers earning at least $361,000 or joint filers earning at least $721,000, with 89% of revenue allocated to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges.

Proponents Say: The tax has been a vital source of revenue for schools. Supporters say if Prop. 3 fails, the loss of up to $15 billion a year for schools will likely lead to layoffs, program cuts and other reductions.
Who is for Yes: California Teachers Association, California School Employees Association, California State PTA, California Democratic Party, California Medical Association.

No Means: The state constitution will not be amended to indefinitely extend the top marginal tax rates on single filers earning at least $361,000 or joint filers earning at least $721,000, thereby allowing them to expire in 2031.

Opponents Say: California already has some of the highest income taxes in the country. The measure may spur wealthy Californians to leave for lower-tax states, taking jobs and revenue with them.
Who is for No: California Taxpayers Association, Reform California.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 4 - Allow public financing of political campaigns

Proposition: Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.

Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote supports repealing the ban on public financing of campaigns, enacted in 1988, and allowing the state and local governments to create programs that provide candidates with public funds under spending limits and eligibility rules.

Proponents Say: Advocates say public campaign financing helps curb the influence of private money in politics. They argue that public financing encourages candidates without significant financial backing to run and empowers small donors.
Who is for Yes: California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters, California Democratic Party.

No Means: A "no" vote opposes repealing the ban on using public funds for election campaigns, keeping the prohibition in place with the existing exemption for charter cities.

Opponents Say: Opponents say the measure would force taxpayers to subsidize political candidates they may not want to support and could direct funding to fraudulent candidates. They argue that it is also expensive for state and local governments to establish the system.
Who is for No: California Taxpayers Association, Reform California

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 5 - Delay replacing recalled state officials

Proposition: Changes California's recall election process by eliminating the simultaneous election of replacement candidates. If a statewide official is recalled, a successor would generally be selected through a subsequent election or appointment, depending on the office.

Fiscal Impact: Uncertain overall. Depending on the office and circumstances, future recalls could result in additional election costs or savings amounting to millions of dollars.

Why is it on the ballot: Under current rules, a governor can be recalled by a majority vote and replaced by a candidate receiving only a plurality of votes. Supporters argue this system can produce an outcome in which a replacement has less popular support than the recalled official.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote separates the recall decision from the selection of a replacement. If a governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would temporarily assume the duties until a successor is elected.

Proponents Say: Recall elections should determine whether an official should be removed, not simultaneously select a replacement from a crowded field. The change would create a fairer and more orderly process.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters, Indivisible CA: StateStrong.

No Means: A "no" vote preserves the existing process in which voters decide whether to recall an official and simultaneously vote for a replacement.

Opponents Say: The proposal weakens voters' recall powers, delays choosing a replacement, and could allow an official from the same political administration to remain in control after a successful recall.
Who is for No: California Republican Party, Election Integrity Project California, Reform California.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 37 – Create a $25 billion homebuyer loan program

Proposition: Authorizes up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to provide eligible middle-income California homebuyers with fixed-rate secondary mortgages covering up to 17% of the purchase price of qualifying newly constructed homes. Buyers must meet residency and income requirements and provide at least a 3% down payment.

Fiscal Impact: No direct state or local government costs are projected. Bonds would be repaid through borrowers' mortgage payments rather than state tax revenue.

Why is it on the ballot: High home prices and large down payment requirements have made homeownership increasingly difficult for middle-income Californians. Supporters want to make homeownership more accessible without relying on general taxpayer funding.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote authorizes California to establish a homebuyer assistance program financed through revenue bonds.

Proponents Say: The program would make homeownership achievable for more middle-class families by reducing the upfront cash required to purchase a home, without imposing direct costs on taxpayers.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, California Association of Realtors, California Conference of Carpenters, SEIU, Xavier Becerra.

No Means: A "no" vote rejects the proposed state-backed homebuyer financing program.

Opponents Say: The program does not address the underlying shortage and high cost of housing. Making mortgages easier to obtain could increase demand, push prices higher, and encourage households to take on more debt.
Who is for No: League of Women Voters, Reform California.

Click here to learn more.

Prop 38 – Borrow $8.4 billion for immunology research

Proposition: Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund research into immunology and immunotherapy, including treatments for cancer, autoimmune diseases, and other conditions involving the immune system.

Fiscal Impact: Approximately $500 million to $600 million annually in state debt repayment costs for about 20 years.

Why is it on the ballot: Supporters believe immunology research offers opportunities for medical breakthroughs and that California should invest in scientific research, particularly amid uncertainty about federal research funding.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote authorizes California to borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research at eligible research institutions.

Proponents Say: Investment in immunology could accelerate treatments and cures for serious diseases, support California's biomedical research industry, and produce future economic benefits.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, American Association of Immunologists, City of Hope, Michelson Center for Public Policy.

No Means: A "no" vote prevents the state from issuing the proposed $8.4 billion in research bonds.

Opponents Say: California should not take on billions in additional debt to prioritize one particular field of medical research. Critics also question the measure's allocation of funding and whether research will produce enough successful treatments to justify the costs.
Who is for No: League of Women Voters, California Health Policy Strategies/No on 38, Robert Kaplan (Stanford), Orange County Register Editorial Board.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 39 – Require voter identification

Proposition: Amends California's Constitution to require government-issued identification when voting in person, additional identifying information for mail-in ballots, and verification of U.S. citizenship for registered voters.

Fiscal Impact: Would increase state and local election administration costs to implement identification verification systems and comply with new requirements. Exact costs would depend on implementation.

Why is it on the ballot: Supporters argue that requiring identification would strengthen election security and public confidence in election results. Opponents argue that existing voter registration and signature verification systems already protect elections and that additional requirements would create unnecessary barriers.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote requires voters to provide additional government-issued identifying information when casting ballots and requires election officials to verify citizenship.

Proponents Say: Voter identification is a reasonable safeguard that would increase trust in election results and help ensure that only eligible citizens vote.
Who is for Yes: California Republican Party, Reform California, businessman Richard Uihlein.

No Means: A "no" vote preserves California's existing voter identification and verification procedures, including signature-based verification for most voting.

Opponents Say: There is insufficient evidence of widespread voter impersonation to justify additional restrictions. New requirements could disproportionately affect elderly, disabled, low-income, and other eligible voters who lack the necessary documentation.
Who is for No: California Democratic Party, American Civil Liberties Union, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 40 – Impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires

Proposition: Imposes a one-time tax equal to 5% of the wealth of qualifying California billionaires. Revenue would primarily support healthcare programs and education.

Fiscal Impact: Could generate tens of billions of dollars in one-time revenue, depending on asset valuations, taxpayer behavior, and implementation. Long-term revenue effects are uncertain because some wealthy taxpayers might relocate or change their investments and tax residency.

Why is it on the ballot: Supporters argue that California needs additional funding to protect healthcare services from federal funding reductions and that extremely wealthy residents should contribute more. Opponents argue that taxing wealth rather than realized income could damage California's economy and encourage wealthy residents to leave.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote establishes a one-time 5% tax on qualifying billionaire wealth to fund designated public services.

Proponents Say: Billionaires have benefited disproportionately from economic growth and tax policies. A one-time wealth tax would help preserve healthcare access and education funding without increasing taxes on most Californians.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, Sen. Bernie Sanders, California Labor Federation, Teamsters California, AFSCME California.

No Means: A "no" vote rejects the proposed one-time billionaire wealth tax.

Opponents Say: The tax could encourage wealthy entrepreneurs and investors to leave California, reducing future income tax revenue, investment, and job creation. Critics also argue that a one-time tax does not provide a sustainable solution to recurring healthcare expenses.
Who is for No: California Business Roundtable, California Medical Association, California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood, California Professional Firefighters, State Building and Construction Trades Council.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 41 – Require audits of spl tax programs and restrict spending-limit exemptions

Proposition: Requires the California State Auditor to review programs funded by proposed special state taxes and conduct periodic audits of programs financed by approved special taxes. It also restricts the ability to exclude new special-tax revenue from the state's constitutional spending limit.

Fiscal Impact: Additional state auditing costs and potentially lower spending authority for programs funded through new special taxes. Actual effects would depend on future tax proposals and spending decisions.

Why is it on the ballot: Supporters argue that California needs greater accountability over how tax revenues are spent and stronger limits on government spending. The measure is also designed to compete with Proposition 40, the billionaire wealth tax.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote establishes additional auditing requirements and changes how certain special taxes interact with California's constitutional spending limits. If Proposition 41 receives more votes than Proposition 40 and both pass, Proposition 41 would invalidate Proposition 40.

Proponents Say: New taxes should be accompanied by independent oversight to ensure that money is spent effectively. The measure would protect taxpayers from excessive government spending and improve accountability.
Who is for Yes: Reform California, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, businessman Stewart Resnick.

No Means: A "no" vote preserves existing state auditing responsibilities and constitutional spending-limit rules.

Opponents Say: The measure is designed primarily to block the billionaire tax rather than improve government accountability. Its spending restrictions could make it harder to fund essential healthcare and education programs.
Who is for No: California Democratic Party, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 42 – Ban new state taxes on personal property and certain retroactive taxes

Proposition: Amends California's Constitution to prohibit new state taxes based on ownership or control of personal property, including financial assets, retirement accounts, investments, and business interests. It also restricts certain retroactive state taxes.

Fiscal Impact: Could reduce future state revenue by preventing the Legislature or voters from establishing certain types of taxes. The actual effect is uncertain because it depends on future tax proposals.

Why is it on the ballot: Supporters want to prevent California from imposing wealth-based taxes on assets that have not been sold or generated taxable income. The measure also competes with Proposition 40's proposed billionaire wealth tax.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote constitutionally prohibits new state taxes on ownership of personal property and certain retroactive taxes. If both Propositions 42 and 40 pass, and Proposition 42 receives more votes, Proposition 42 would invalidate Proposition 40.

Proponents Say: People should not be taxed merely for owning investments, retirement accounts, or other assets. The measure would protect taxpayers from future wealth taxes, discourage capital flight, and provide greater tax certainty.
Who is for Yes: Reform California, Building a Better California, Sergey Brin, California Professional Firefighters, Peace Officers Research Association of California, State Building and Construction Trades Council.

No Means: A "no" vote preserves the state's ability to consider future taxes on ownership of personal property, subject to existing constitutional restrictions.

Opponents Say: The measure would permanently limit California's ability to tax extreme wealth, protecting billionaires while reducing options for funding public services. Critics argue that its broad language goes beyond the immediate billionaire tax debate.
Who is for No: California Democratic Party, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 43 – Require two-thirds voter approval for certain local taxes

Proposition: Changes California's Constitution to require a two-thirds majority for voter-proposed local special taxes, rather than the simple majority currently allowed for certain citizen initiatives.

Fiscal Impact: Local governments could collect less additional tax revenue in the future because some tax measures supported by a majority of voters would fail to meet the higher approval threshold.

Why is it on the ballot: California currently applies different voting thresholds to certain local taxes depending on whether they originate from government officials or citizen initiatives. Supporters argue that special taxes should face the same two-thirds requirement regardless of who proposes them.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote requires certain citizen-initiated local special taxes to receive at least two-thirds voter approval beginning January 1, 2027.

Proponents Say: Tax increases earmarked for specific purposes should require broad public support. The measure would prevent special-interest groups from using the initiative process to bypass existing taxpayer protections.
Who is for Yes: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Reform California.

No Means: A "no" vote preserves the existing simple-majority threshold for qualifying citizen-initiated local special taxes.

Opponents Say: The proposal allows a minority of voters to block taxes supported by a majority, making it harder for communities to fund schools, emergency services, transportation, and other local priorities.
Who is for No: California Democratic Party, SEIU Local 1000.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 44 – Require community clinics to spend 90% of revenue on patient care

Proposition: Requires certain nonprofit community healthcare clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on qualifying healthcare services. The state Attorney General would establish guidance and could impose penalties for noncompliance.

Fiscal Impact: Additional state administrative and enforcement costs. Clinics that fail to meet the requirement could face substantial financial penalties, potentially affecting their operations and services.

Why is it on the ballot: Supporters argue that community clinics serving low-income patients should prioritize direct healthcare services over administrative costs and executive compensation. Opponents contend that clinics already operate under extensive regulations and that a rigid spending requirement could jeopardize essential services.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote establishes a mandatory 90% healthcare-service spending requirement for certain nonprofit community clinics.

Proponents Say: Clinics receiving public healthcare funding should spend as much as possible on patient services rather than administrative overhead. The measure would increase accountability and ensure more resources reach patients.
Who is for Yes: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.

No Means: A "no" vote leaves existing clinic spending requirements and regulatory oversight unchanged.

Opponents Say: The proposal imposes an inflexible financial requirement that fails to account for legitimate operating expenses, such as technology, facilities, administration, and workforce development. Financial penalties could force clinics to reduce services or close.
Who is for No: California Democratic Party, California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Hospital Association.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Prop 45 – Speed up environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure

Proposition: Modifies California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) procedures for certain public and private development projects, including tighter timelines for environmental reviews and court challenges, and limits on the scope of some legal challenges.

Fiscal Impact: Could reduce costs associated with project delays and environmental review litigation, but could also create additional costs depending on implementation and environmental impacts. The overall fiscal effect is uncertain.

Why is it on the ballot: California's environmental review process has been criticized for delaying housing, infrastructure, and other development projects. Supporters argue that reform is necessary to reduce construction costs and accelerate needed projects. Opponents argue that existing environmental protections are essential for protecting communities from pollution and poorly planned development.

Yes Means: A "yes" vote changes environmental review and litigation procedures for qualifying projects, including requiring courts to resolve certain CEQA lawsuits within 270 days.

Proponents Say: California's environmental review process is overly bureaucratic and vulnerable to lawsuits that delay important projects. Streamlining the process would lower costs, accelerate housing and infrastructure development, and support economic growth while retaining important environmental protections.
Who is for Yes: California Chamber of Commerce, California Republican Party, California Hospital Association, California Building Industry Association, California Council for Affordable Housing, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.

No Means: A "no" vote preserves existing environmental review procedures and legal protections under CEQA.

Opponents Say: The proposal weakens environmental safeguards and limits the ability of communities to challenge projects that could harm public health or the environment. Faster approval should not come at the expense of transparency, public participation, and accountability.
Who is for No: California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters, Sierra Club California, California Nurses Association, Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation.

Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.

Leave us feedback here.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse