Official Voter Information Guide · annotated
The booklet, with margin notes
The left column is what the state's voter booklet says about each proposition: its official title, summary, what a yes or no vote means, and the official arguments. It is condensed from the Secretary of State's Quick Reference Guide, with short quotes kept word for word. The margin notes are ours: who's really behind it, claims that need context, and what got left out.
1Proposition 1
Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute.
Official summary 2
Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for rental housing, veterans' mortgages, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and down payment help.
Fiscal impact. "Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years" to repay the bond.
- Supporters
- US Vets, CA Federation of Teachers, Habitat for Humanity CA, and others
- Opponents
- None submitted
A Yes vote means
The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.
A No vote means
The state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.
Argument for 1
Builds affordable homes for veterans, seniors and people with disabilities; expands homeownership; speeds up shovel-ready housing; helps people at risk of homelessness. "Requires strict fiscal accountability and public oversight with no new taxes."
Argument against
No argument against was submitted.
2Proposition 2
Increases State's Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary
Increases the Rainy Day Fund voters approved in 2014, to help pay for education, health care, public safety and other services during downturns.
Fiscal impact. Higher state budget reserves.
- Supporters
- CA Professional Firefighters, LA Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Newsom, Xavier Becerra, Asm. Jesse Gabriel
- Opponents
- Asm. David Tangipa
A Yes vote means
Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change: higher reserves, and extra debt payments for a longer period.
A No vote means
Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.
Argument for 2
"Protect schools, healthcare, and public safety funding." Doubles the Rainy Day Fund, limits overspending in surplus years, keeps education funded in downturns. Backed by firefighters, hospitals, clinics and educators.
Argument against 1
"Guarantees more spending, not savings." Excludes reserve deposits from the constitutional spending limit, which makes taxpayer rebates less likely. Provides no new money for schools, health care or public safety.
3Proposition 3
Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary 2
Makes permanent the existing voter-approved tax rates on individuals earning over "$371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation)." Revenue goes to public education.
Fiscal impact. Keeps $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state income tax revenue that would otherwise expire in 2031.
- Supporters
- California Teachers Association, CA School Nurses Organization, California State PTA, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA
- Opponents
- California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA, CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
A Yes vote means
An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.
A No vote means
An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.
Argument for 1
Protects school and health care funding without raising taxes; prevents a tax cut for the wealthiest by keeping rates the top 2% have paid for 15 years; requires audits so money reaches classrooms.
Argument against
Californians already pay some of the highest taxes in the country with a high cost of living; the state wastes billions on failed programs and should fix spending before making taxes permanent.
4Proposition 4
Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.
Official summary 1
Repeals the ban on state and local governments offering public funding to candidates. Programs could not use money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety.
Fiscal impact. A few hundred thousand dollars a year for the Fair Political Practices Commission.
- Supporters
- League of Women Voters of CA, California Nurses Association, Consumer Watchdog
- Opponents
- California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA
A Yes vote means
State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs, subject to limits on which public funds could be used and who could receive them.
A No vote means
The state and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs.
Argument for
California is the only state that bans public campaign funding. Removes the ban with "strict taxpayer safeguards." Special interests want to keep the ban.
Argument against 2
Lets politicians use taxpayer money for negative campaigns, with "NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money."
5Proposition 5
Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary
Today voters pick a replacement on the same ballot as the recall. This would fill vacancies through a later special election or an appointment.
Fiscal impact. Net effect unknown; a recall could save or cost millions depending on the office.
- Supporters
- Sen. Josh Newman; League of Women Voters of CA and California Common Cause
- Opponents
- No contact listed
A Yes vote means
Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy.
A No vote means
Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.
Argument for 2
"Restores the recall to its original purpose: removing corrupt officials." Closes a loophole that lets a replacement win with a small share of the vote.
Argument against 1
"Limits voters' right to select a replacement for recalled officials." For statewide offices, other politicians would choose; for lower offices, a costly later election leaves the seat empty for months.
37Proposition 37
Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute.
Official summary 1
"Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages" on newly built homes under about $1.5 million, covering up to 17% of the price. Buyers must live in the home, meet income limits and put at least 3% down. Bonds are repaid by mortgage payments, not the state.
Fiscal impact. No direct state or local costs.
- Supporters
- United Nurses Associations of CA, CA Conference of Carpenters, Treasurer Fiona Ma
- Opponents
- None submitted
A Yes vote means
The state would create a new homebuying assistance program, funded by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds repaid by homeowners' loan payments.
A No vote means
The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.
Argument for 3
"Zero Taxpayer Cost—No Taxpayer Risk." Private bond investors, not taxpayers, fund low-interest mortgages that keep homeownership in reach for the middle class.
Argument against 4
No argument against was submitted.
38Proposition 38
Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.
Official summary 2
"Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research." Half goes to one University of California-affiliated nonprofit institute, half to research grants.
Fiscal impact. $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bonds, possibly offset if the research generates revenue.
- Supporters
- Michael J. Fox Foundation, Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Kidney Cancer Association, American Nurses Association/CA
- Opponents
- Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., Stanford School of Medicine
A Yes vote means
The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy.
A No vote means
The state could not borrow $8.4 billion for that research.
Argument for 13
Funds research to cure and prevent cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. "Strong accountability including independent audits" and a mandated 20% prescription discount; designed to cost taxpayers nothing.
Argument against
Supports research but this is the wrong approach: decades of bond debt and less flexibility. "Research funding should be guided through the normal budget process."
39Proposition 39
Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary 1
"Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number." In-person voters must show government-issued ID.
Fiscal impact. "Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions" a year.
- Supporters
- The Transparency Foundation, Latino American Political Assn, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn
- Opponents
- ACLU California Action, Common Cause, League of Women Voters of CA
A Yes vote means
Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote.
A No vote means
A voter's identity would continue to be established with the voter's signature.
Argument for 2
"Yes on Prop. 39 gives California a BIPARTISAN solution for VOTER ID." Increases trust and confidence in elections.
Argument against 3
Adds costly, unnecessary barriers that "could block eligible California voters, expose personal information to identity theft." "Don't let MAGA billionaires decide which voters count."
40Proposition 40
Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Official summary 2
A one-time 5% tax on taxpayers with assets over $1 billion, mainly for health care. Exempt from the school-funding formula and the state spending limit.
Fiscal impact. A temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars over several years, plus a possible ongoing loss of under $1 billion a year in income tax from billionaires.
- Supporters
- Sen. Bernie Sanders, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
- Opponents
- CA Primary Care Association, CA School Boards Association, California Taxpayers Association, CA Teachers Association, CA Medical Association
A Yes vote means
The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.
A No vote means
The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.
Argument for 3
"Trump slashed healthcare funding to pay for billionaire tax breaks," ending coverage for over a million Californians and raising premiums for millions more. Billionaires should pay their fair share.
Argument against 4
A "flawed, one-time tax scheme that hurts our economy." Damages the budget, does nothing to lower health care costs, and has no safeguards or accountability.
41Proposition 41
Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues From State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary 1
Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenue from the voter-approved spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes.
Fiscal impact. Net effect unknown; depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature and other policymakers.
- Supporters
- CalCPAs, CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, CalTax
- Opponents
- Sen. Bernie Sanders, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
A Yes vote means
The State Auditor would review programs a proposed special-tax initiative would fund before it goes on the ballot, and regularly review programs funded by new special taxes. The state might not be able to exclude new special-tax spending from its spending limit.
A No vote means
The State Auditor's responsibility to review government programs would not change, and neither would spending limit requirements.
Argument for 3
Taxpayers deserve better results; homelessness programs got billions with little to show. Requires the independent State Auditor to conduct "PUBLIC AUDITS" of programs funded by new taxes.
Argument against 2
Not really about audits: a "billionaire-funded trick designed to undo the California Billionaire Tax" that would cost Californians health care.
42Proposition 42
Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary 2
Bars new state taxes on owning personal property and taxes that apply retroactively. Voids conflicting taxes enacted after January 1, 2026.
Fiscal impact. "Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future."
- Supporters
- CA Professional Firefighters, State Building & Construction Trades Council, AMVETS Department of CA
- Opponents
- Sen. Bernie Sanders, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
A Yes vote means
The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
A No vote means
The state could still create new taxes on owning financial assets or other personal property.
Argument for 1
The constitution lets lawmakers tax retirement and savings that were already taxed when earned. This protects those savings by banning new and retroactive personal property taxes.
Argument against
A "billionaire-funded trick" meant to undo the California Billionaire Tax that would cost Californians health care.
43Proposition 43
Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Official summary
Raises the vote needed to pass voter-proposed local special taxes from a simple majority to two-thirds, starting January 1, 2027. Could slow growth in local tax revenue.
Fiscal impact. Local tax revenue may grow more slowly; actual impact unknown.
- Supporters
- California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA, CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
- Opponents
- CA Professional Firefighters, CA Federation of Teachers, Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA
A Yes vote means
Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.
A No vote means
Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.
Argument for 2
Restores Prop 13's two-thirds rule for local special taxes and closes a loophole special interests use to pass earmarked taxes. "Closes this loophole, protecting taxpayers, homeowners and renters."
Argument against 3
Limits money for fire, 911, schools, roads, hospitals and housing. "Lets just 33.4% of voters veto what nearly 67% want."
44Proposition 44
Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.
Official summary
Penalizes nonprofit community clinics serving underserved areas that spend less than 90% of revenue on "program services."
Fiscal impact. State costs in the low tens of millions of dollars a year, covered by fees.
- Supporters
- SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (no supporters submitted a statement)
- Opponents
- American Academy of Pediatrics CA, CA School Nurses Organization, CA Academy of Family Physicians, CA Medical Association
A Yes vote means
Certain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their yearly revenue on health care services.
A No vote means
The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.
Argument for
Holds clinics and executives accountable by putting 90% of revenue into patient care, increasing transparency and reducing executive spending.
Argument against 2
Would "shut down hundreds of community health clinics" and cut vital services for millions.
45Proposition 45
Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.
Official summary 3
Amends the California Environmental Quality Act to speed review for certain projects, including most housing, transportation, water and health projects, with deadlines for review and for resolving lawsuits.
Fiscal impact. "Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars," possibly over $100 million a year, partly covered by fees. Long-term effects uncertain.
- Supporters
- CA Children's Hospital Association, California Water Association, CA Council for Affordable Housing
- Opponents
- Coalition for Clean Air, CA Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, National Wildlife Federation
A Yes vote means
Certain projects would become eligible for new review and court-challenge procedures that tighten time limits and narrow what courts can consider.
A No vote means
Public and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures.
Argument for 2
The current system makes California unaffordable. Cuts red tape so housing, water, schools, hospitals, clean energy and wildfire prevention get built faster, with strong environmental protections kept.
Argument against
"Limits environmental and public review of projects built in your community"; puts corporate profits over public health, air and water; taxpayers pay more.
Official text fetched Oct 28, 2026. If anything here differs from your printed booklet, the printed booklet is the official version.