Here’s what every proposition on the California ballot is about

Haven’t filled out your ballot yet? Did you take a look, see how long it was and set it back down? No worries. CALÓ News has compiled the necessary information on each of the 14 propositions you’ll see on your midterm ballot.

Keep reading to find out the 4-1-1 on each ballot proposition including who supports and opposes it, and most importantly, how it would affect you.

Prop. 1: Affordable and veteran housing bond

Lawmakers placed Proposition 1, an $11.25 billion housing bond, on the ballot this year. The money will fund a variety of affordable housing programs.

Veteran housing would receive $1.25 billion of the total bond amount, with the rest to go toward funding homeownership assistance programs, farmworker housing, tribal housing, rental homes and more.

Supporters say the state must borrow the money in order to address the housing crisis – the state has estimated it needs to build over 180,000 units to help alleviate the lack of housing. No official argument against Prop. 1 was submitted to the Secretary of State, though Republicans have criticized the measure, accusing Democrats of using veterans as a means to an end.

The bond is supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party, CA Federation of Teachers and top Democratic leadership in the State Senate and Assembly.

The proposition is expected to cost the state between $500 million to $600 million annually over the next 25 years to repay.

Prop. 2: Rainy Day Fund

Lawmakers also put forward Prop. 2, a constitutional amendment that will allow the state to pour up to 20% of the general fund tax revenue into state reserves. The current depository ceiling is 10%.

The Rainy Day Fund was approved by voters in 2014 to fund education, health care, public safety and more. A “yes” vote would mean the state’s budget reserves are higher and lead to the state making extra debt payments for a longer period of time.

Arguments in support and opposition for the measure are split clearly down party lines, with Democrats firmly supporting and Republicans vehemently opposed. 

Supporters say Prop. 1 has appropriate accountability measures in place and is necessary to ensure that during times of a booming economy, the state is able to save more for when money is not flowing as easily. Opponents say politicians will be able to use the money as a “slush fund.” 

Reform California, led by Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, opposes the proposition. The group is also the main backer of Prop. 39, a voter identification initiative. 

Prop. 3: Tax on top earners

The California Teacher Association placed Prop. 3 on the ballot, which would make permanent the current income tax on the state’s top earners in order to continue funding education and healthcare. The tax raises anywhere between $5 billion to $15 billion a year.

Voters first enacted the tax in 2012 and if not passed, is set to expire in 2031. 

The income tax is applicable to individuals earning over $371,000 currently, and is adjusted yearly for inflation. 

The vast majority of the tax revenue (89%) goes to K-12 public schools, with 11% going toward community colleges and anything left over funneled to public health care. 

The proposition is heavily backed by teachers, nurses and Planned Parenthood; supporters have raised around $60 million to get the measure passed, according to data compiled by CalMatters.

Legislative Republicans as well as the powerful California Taxpayers Association are in opposition, arguing that Prop. 3 is an excessive tax that does not get to the root of “failed programs.”

Prop. 4: Public fundraising

State legislators put Proposition 4 on the ballot, asking voters to allow state and local governments to establish public campaign funds for candidates. If passed, it would reverse a 1988 ban against the practice.

Limits would be in place to ensure funds are not taken from education, transportation or public safety programs. If passed, the proposition is estimated to cost the state a few hundred thousands of dollars annually for the Fair Political Practices Commission to oversee.

Supporters argue that California is the only state that does not allow for public funding of campaigns, which they say is a way to negate the influence of private money in politics. Opponents say the proposition will allow politicians to use taxpayer money to fund their campaigns with little limits.

Proposition 4 is endorsed by the California Democratic Party and League of Women Voters, and opposed by the California Taxpayers Association and United Latinos Action.

Prop. 5: Changes to recall process

Lawmakers placed Proposition 5 on this year’s ballot in an attempt to change how recalls of elected officials work. This would be a California Constitutional amendment.

Currently, when a recall election takes place, voters are simultaneously asked to elect a replacement candidate. The proposed ballot proposition would make it so after a successful recall, the vacant seat is filled by a separate election or appointment. 

Supporters, including the League of Women Voters, frame the proposition as a common sense measure, while opponents like the California Republican Party say it will take power away from voters and cost local governments unnecessary money to host separate elections.

The fiscal impact on the state is unknown, though the Secretary of State acknowledges “savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.”

Prop. 37: Middle-income homebuyers loan

Labor unions and real estate industry groups placed Proposition 37 on the midterm ballot. The measure would allow the state’s Housing Finance Agency to borrow up to $25 billion to help middle-income homebuyers purchase newly constructed homes.

If the Agency chooses to purchase the bonds, the $25 billion would be available to buyers earning up to twice the median income in the area where they are looking to buy. The mortgages would be up to 17% of the purchase price for houses listed up to $1.5 million and would require a 3% down payment.

Mortgage payments would be made to private lenders. The bonds would be repaid by the mortgage payments, not the state.

The proposition is endorsed by the United Nurses Associations of California, the California Democratic Party, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra and more. Reform California and the League of Women Voters, among others, are opposed.

Prop. 38: Medical research bond

Proposition 38 would allow the state to borrow $8.4 billion in bonds to support immunology and immunotherapy medical research attempting to find cures for heart disease, Alzheimer’s and other diseases. 

Half of the money would go toward a University of California-affiliated nonprofit research institute with the other half used to fund research grants.

California would pay between $500 million to $600 million annually for 20 years to repay the bonds.

Supporters say the proposition is necessary to fund medical research at a time when the federal administration has cut funding for it. Opponents say it's a money grab, as Gary Michelson, Prop. 38’s main backer, leads the institute that is most likely to receive the $4 billion, according to reporting from CalMatters.

The proposition is supported by the American Nurses Association of California, Michael J. Fox Foundation and California Democratic Party. It is opposed by the League of Women Voters and the Peace and Freedom Party, among others.

Prop. 39: Voter ID

Reform California, with the help of other Conservative groups, raised enough signatures to place Proposition 39, a voter-ID initiative, on the ballot.

It would require voters to present a government-issued ID when voting in person. When registering to vote by mail, individuals will be required to submit an ID as well as include the last four digits of either their Social Security number or government ID on their mail-in ballot.

The state will also be required to issue a voter identification card free of cost to voters who request one.

Those who back the voter-ID initiative say it is necessary to ensure California’s elections are secure and only citizens are voting. Opponents, Democratic leaders and organizations like the ACLU, say the initiative amounts to voter suppression and have framed it as part of President Donald Trump’s plans to disenfranchise voters, specifically Latinos.

Prop. 39 is estimated to cost the state between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars annually to implement the voting requirements.

Prop. 40: Billionaire’s tax

One of the most contentious propositions on the ballot, Prop. 40 would institute a one-time five percent tax on the state’s billionaires and direct most of the money to the state’s health care system, as well as some to the K-12 public school system.

The tax targets the roughly 200 California residents whose net worth was over $1 billion at the start of 2026; only those individuals would be subject to the tax.

The measure was placed on the ballot and has been ardently defended by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW). The union projects the tax will raise around $100 billion in five years.

Supporters say the tax is necessary to not only ensure the wealthiest are contributing their fair share, but to fight back against federal budget cuts that have targeted the state’s health care system.

The tax is opposed heavily by those it targets as well as labor and other health organizations like Planned Parenthood.

The technology, finance and insurance industries alone have raised over $90 million to defeat Prop. 40, compared to the roughly $31 million that unions have raised in support, according to CalMatters.

Some of the state’s top Democrats have come out against the proposition, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and his likely successor Xavier Becerra. While both have said they support making billionaires pay their fair share of taxes, they believe Prop. 40 is not the right avenue to do so.

The implementation of Prop. 40 rests on the outcomes of propositions 41 and 42, which if they receive more votes, would cancel out the billionaire tax.

Prop 41: Tax audits

This proposition, placed on the ballot by opponents of the one-time, five percent wealth tax, would nullify any new state taxes passed after Jan. 1, 2026, counting the revenue toward the state spending limit.

The state auditor would be required to review any new tax proposal before it goes to voters, and conduct audits on the programs funded by new special taxes, to ensure that money is not being wasted.

The proposition is supported by Reform California, Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a staunch supporter of the billionaire tax, as well as SEIU-UHW, oppose the proposition.

If Prop. 41 receives more voters than Prop. 40, it will cancel out the billionaire tax.

Prop. 42: Property taxes

Another proposition born out of opposition to the wealth tax, Prop. 42 would ban new taxes on personal property, including investments accounts like 401ks and anything else people own besides real estate.

The measure would prohibit retroactive taxes on those items – the billionaire tax applies retroactively, to any billionaire that was living in the state as of Jan. 1 of this year. If passed, the measure would nullify any tax that conflicts with it, i.e., Proposition 40.

Supporters say the proposition is necessary to ensure pensions and retirements are not taxed in the future, tying the measure directly to the wealth tax, though Prop. 40 is limited in who it targets.

Opponents of Proposition 42 say the measure is attempting to trick voters into unknowingly voting against the billionaire tax.

Proposition 42 is bankrolled by the billionaires targeted by the wealth tax, again including Brin. SEIU-UHW and the California Democratic Party oppose.

Similarly to Prop 41, if voters pass Prop. 42 with more votes, the billionaire’s tax would essentially be null and void.

Prop 43: Local taxes

Proposition 43 would make it harder to increase local taxes by requiring a two-thirds majority, instead of a simple majority, on voter-proposed local tax ballot initiatives beginning next year. The Legislature placed the initiative on the ballot.

Supporters say that this proposition will keep special interest groups out of potential tax increases, while opponents argue the proposition will make it harder for voters to lead the way and fund local services.

The California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and anti-tax groups like Reform California and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association are in support. The California Democratic Party and labor unions including SEIU Local 1000 and California Professional Firefighters oppose.

Prop. 44: Community health clinics

This proposition would require community clinics that serve primarily low-income populations to allocate 90% of their revenue toward patient care.

The state estimates Proposition 44 would cost it in the low tens of millions of dollars a year, while community clinics say the fiscal impact on them (over $1.7 billion) would lead to decreased services and potential clinic closures.

SEIU-UHW is Prop. 44’s main backer, with the union saying clinics must spend more on patient care and less on executive pay. Opponents argue that the state already regulates community clinics.

Opponents include the California Democratic Party, California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Prop. 45: Speeding up environmental reviews

The California Chamber of Commerce placed Proposition 45 on the ballot, aiming to speed up the environmental review process that often slows down development projects.

The proposition targets the landmark California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which is often blamed for causing projects to stall while environmental reviews are completed.

Prop. 45 would place a one-year limit on environmental reviews for “essential” projects like housing and infrastructure. Courts would also be required to issue decisions on CEQA lawsuits within 270 days.

Supporters of Prop. 45 say rigid CEQA requirements are exacerbating the affordability crisis by making it harder to build housing, and that the measure is necessary to cut red tape.

Opponents argue the proposition “guts” the state’s environmental law and favors corporate profits over public health.

The California Republican Party, California League of United Latin American Citizens and California Building Industry Association are among the supporters.

The California Democratic Party, Coalition for Clean Air and the Western Center of Law and Poverty are a few of the opponents of Prop. 45.