California State Room
Ballot Measures & Propositions — California
Articles, candidate report cards, office explainers & public accountability
California 2026 — and the Road Beyond
Research checked: October 7, 2026. Election: November 3, 2026.
This page covers all 14 statewide propositions listed in the official November voter guide: 1–5 and 37–45. The numbers are the current guide's numbers. Local measures depend on your voting address and are a separate layer of the ballot.
Each entry separates the proposed change, Yes/No choices, official fiscal estimate and a question to investigate. These are summaries, not endorsements, scores or predictions. Fiscal estimates are conditional, not guaranteed receipts or costs.
Official statewide proposition guide · Official quick guide and campaign-finance information.
CALIFORNIA AT A GLANCE — PROPOSED BORROWING
Three statewide propositions would authorize up to $44.65 billion in bonds if all three pass. This is proposed principal borrowing, before interest, rather than debt already incurred.
| Statewide proposal | Bond authority | Repayment source |
|---|---|---|
| Proposition 1 — housing | $11.25 billion general-obligation bonds | State funds; estimated $500–$600 million annually for about 25 years |
| Proposition 37 — homebuyer loans | $25 billion revenue bonds | Homeowners' loan payments; official summary identifies no direct state or local cost |
| Proposition 38 — medical research | $8.4 billion general-obligation bonds | State funds; estimated $500–$600 million annually for about 20 years, with possible research-revenue offsets |
General-obligation subtotal: $19.65 billion. Home-loan revenue bonds: $25 billion. These have different repayment sources. Local bond proposals are additional and are excluded from the statewide subtotal.
| Coverage | Who votes / what this page includes |
|---|---|
| California statewide | All California voters: the same 14 statewide propositions, summarized below |
| San Diego local | County, city, school or special-district measures depend on your address; the notice reviewed here contains nine bond proposals totaling $4.954 billion |
| Los Angeles local | Two countywide measures plus 66 local-jurisdiction measures in the county's August 20 list; its 12 local bond proposals total $1.7442 billion and apply within their respective jurisdictions |
The local figures are subtotals of the cited documents, not a total for all 58 counties. A voter does not receive every local measure in a county. District candidate coverage elsewhere on this site does not establish complete local-measure coverage.
STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS
PROPOSITION 1 — HOUSING BONDS
Proposal: Authorizes $11.25 billion in state borrowing for affordable housing programs, including rental housing and homebuyer assistance.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Authorizes this bond program. |
| No | Does not authorize this bond program. |
| Fiscal estimate | Estimated state debt payments of $500–$600 million annually for about 25 years. |
| Research question | How are projects selected, and how many affordable homes will each dollar support? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 2 — BUDGET RESERVES
Proposal: Changes rules for the state rainy-day reserve and the repayment of certain state debts.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Adopts the new reserve and debt-payment rules. |
| No | Keeps the existing rules. |
| Fiscal estimate | Larger state budget reserves over time; annual effects depend on revenues and budget decisions. |
| Research question | How will larger reserves affect services during downturns and spending in stronger years? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 3 — HIGH-INCOME TAX EXTENSION
Proposal: Makes existing temporary higher personal-income-tax rates permanent to support schools and health care.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Extends these higher rates permanently. |
| No | Leaves the scheduled 2031 expiration in place. |
| Fiscal estimate | Maintains an estimated $5–$15 billion in annual revenue that would otherwise expire. |
| Research question | How will the revenue be allocated, and how sensitive is it to changes in high-income earnings? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 4 — PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS
Proposal: Removes the prohibition on using public funds for state and local candidate campaigns, subject to restrictions.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Allows public financing programs under the measure’s conditions. |
| No | Keeps the existing prohibition. |
| Fiscal estimate | Ongoing state regulatory costs of a few hundred thousand dollars annually; program costs depend on later government choices. |
| Research question | What eligibility rules would let lower-budget candidates participate, and what spending safeguards would apply? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 5 — RECALL PROCEDURE
Proposal: Changes the process for filling vacancies after a successful recall of a statewide officer.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Uses the new appointment or separate-election procedures, depending on the office and timing. |
| No | Keeps the current recall replacement process. |
| Fiscal estimate | Unknown net effect; individual recalls could produce millions of dollars in election-cost savings or additional costs. |
| Research question | How quickly would a vacancy be filled, and when would voters choose a successor? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 37 — NEW-HOME PURCHASE LOANS
Proposal: Creates a middle-income buyer assistance program for qualifying new homes, financed through $25 billion in revenue bonds.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Establishes the program and authorizes its financing. |
| No | Does not establish this new program. |
| Fiscal estimate | The official summary identifies no direct state or local fiscal cost; homeowner payments repay the revenue bonds. |
| Research question | Who qualifies, what are the loan terms, and how are repayment risks handled? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 38 — IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH BONDS
Proposal: Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general-obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Authorizes the research bond program. |
| No | Does not authorize this bond program. |
| Fiscal estimate | Estimated state payments of $500–$600 million annually for 20 years; research revenues may offset some costs. |
| Research question | How are grants evaluated, and how would taxpayers share in resulting revenues? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 39 — ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION
Proposal: Proposes additional government-ID requirements for in-person voting and identifying information on mailed ballot envelopes.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Adopts the proposed identification requirements. |
| No | Keeps existing voting-identification and verification rules. |
| Fiscal estimate | Estimated state and local election costs ranging from tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. |
| Research question | How would eligible voters obtain acceptable identification and resolve verification problems? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
Proposition 39 is a proposed change, not current voting instructions. Follow the current instructions from your county election office when casting your ballot.
PROPOSITION 40 — ONE-TIME BILLIONAIRE WEALTH TAX
Proposal: Creates a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of certain billionaires, with most proceeds allocated to health care.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Adopts this new tax and its allocations. |
| No | Does not adopt this new tax. |
| Fiscal estimate | Potential tens of billions in temporary revenue over several years; possible ongoing income-tax losses of less than $1 billion annually. |
| Research question | How is taxable wealth valued, and how dependable would collection and recurring budget effects be? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 41 — SPECIAL-TAX AUDITS AND SPENDING LIMITS
Proposal: Adds audit requirements for new state special taxes and prohibits certain new tax revenues from being exempted from the state spending limit.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Adopts the new audit and spending-limit restrictions. |
| No | Keeps the existing rules. |
| Fiscal estimate | Net state fiscal effect is unknown and depends on future tax measures and government decisions. |
| Research question | What would audits cost, and how would these rules affect measures on the same ballot? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 42 — LIMITS ON NEW PERSONAL-PROPERTY TAXES
Proposal: Bars new state taxes on ownership of personal property and certain retroactive state taxes.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Adopts these restrictions. |
| No | Retains the state’s current options for such taxes. |
| Fiscal estimate | Could reduce future state tax-revenue growth; effects depend on taxes that otherwise would be adopted. |
| Research question | Which assets and proposed taxes fall within the restrictions? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 43 — LOCAL SPECIAL-TAX VOTE THRESHOLD
Proposal: Raises the approval threshold for voter-proposed local special taxes to two-thirds beginning January 1, 2027.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Applies the higher threshold to the specified local taxes. |
| No | Keeps the existing threshold for those taxes. |
| Fiscal estimate | Local tax revenues could grow more slowly if measures that otherwise would pass fail to reach two-thirds. |
| Research question | How would the threshold affect voter initiatives and local service funding? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 44 — COMMUNITY CLINIC SPENDING RULES
Proposal: Requires covered nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of revenue on charitable-purpose program services.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Adopts the spending requirement and enforcement rules. |
| No | Does not adopt this new requirement. |
| Fiscal estimate | Estimated state enforcement costs in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, covered by fees. |
| Research question | How are program services defined, and what happens to a clinic that does not meet the requirement? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
PROPOSITION 45 — ENVIRONMENTAL-REVIEW PROCEDURES
Proposal: Changes environmental review and court procedures for eligible housing, transportation, water and health projects.
| Choice / review | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Yes | Adopts the proposed deadlines and procedural changes. |
| No | Keeps existing procedures. |
| Fiscal estimate | Initial annual public costs in the high tens of millions, potentially exceeding $100 million, partly offset by fees; longer-term effects are uncertain. |
| Research question | Which projects qualify, and how do faster decisions affect public participation and environmental protections? |
Official summary, analysis, arguments and measure text. Arguments are advocacy; compare them with the independent fiscal analysis and the full text.
SPENDING AND DONOR RESEARCH
Campaign spending is different from a measure's fiscal effect. A committee's receipts do not measure the cost to taxpayers. Compare both support and opposition committees using the same reporting period, note independent spending, and distinguish cash on hand from total receipts.
Use the official quick guide's campaign-finance section and the proposition guide's contributor links to identify committees and their major funders. No donor totals or “underdog” rankings are assigned here before the relevant filing dates and committees have been verified.
SAN DIEGO — LOCAL MEASURE NOTICE
Nine school and college bond proposals in this notice total $4.954 billion in proposed principal. This subtotal excludes statewide bonds and the notice's tax, charter and expenditure-limit proposals.
The county's August 8 election notice identifies the following local proposals for November 3. This is a source-notice index, not a complete countywide guide or a verified assignment of ballot letters. Match the proposal to your current sample ballot.
| Jurisdiction / proposal | Subject or bond authorization in notice |
|---|---|
| County charter | Ethics, budget and audit oversight; supervisor term limits |
| County health and safety | Half-cent sales tax for designated services |
| Fallbrook Union Elementary | $76 million school bonds |
| Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College | $624 million college bonds |
| Jamul-Dulzura Union School | $18 million school bonds |
| Julian Union High School | $9 million school bonds |
| La Mesa-Spring Valley School | $131 million school bonds |
| Mountain Empire Unified School | $23 million school bonds |
| San Diego Unified School | $3.5 billion school bonds |
| Santee School | $30 million school bonds |
| Vista Unified School | $543 million school bonds |
| Ramona Municipal Water | Changes project-expenditure limits |
| Harris Annex road zone | Parcel tax replacing assessment |
| Pala Mesa Zone A road zone | Parcel tax replacing assessment |
Official election notice. Bond authorization is principal borrowing, not total repayment cost. Review the notice and county analysis for assessed-value tax rates, repayment estimates, oversight and duration.
LOS ANGELES — COUNTY AND LOCAL MEASURES
The county's August 20 final list contains two countywide measures and 66 local-jurisdiction measures. Countywide A addresses public-safety employee bargaining and binding arbitration; E addresses ethics oversight and community-investment budgeting. Neither authorizes bonds.
Twelve local bond proposals in that list total $1.7442 billion: $1.6642 billion for schools and a community college, plus $80 million for South Pasadena infrastructure. Each applies within its jurisdiction; these are proposed principal amounts before interest.
| Jurisdiction | Measure | Proposed bonds |
|---|---|---|
| Bellflower Unified School | SM | $135 million |
| Charter Oak Unified School | S | $75 million |
| Claremont Unified School | CS | $77 million |
| El Rancho Unified School | ED | $118 million |
| Glendora Unified School | G | $86 million |
| Hawthorne School | HH | $110 million |
| Inglewood Unified School | MM | $396 million |
| Keppel Union School | K | $27 million |
| Pasadena Area Community College | UP | $485 million |
| South Pasadena city | SOS | $80 million |
| Temple City Unified School | TCS | $146 million |
| Valle Lindo School | R | $9.2 million |
Official Los Angeles County measure list, August 20. Other local proposals concern taxes, charter rules and services. Use your current sample ballot for the measures that apply to you.
FIND THE LOCAL MEASURES ON YOUR BALLOT
San Diego current election and sample-ballot resources · Los Angeles County election office · Los Angeles City Clerk measure materials.
All 58 county election-office links · Secretary of State county directory.
Statewide proposition coverage is complete against the official guide checked October 7. Statewide local-measure coverage remains incomplete. No local proposal is assumed to apply to every California voter.
We wish California's communities a fair election and informed decisions. Read the full measure, compare both sides, and make your own choice.