City of Lakewood

Proposition 1 will authorize $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for the preservation, development, and construction of affordable rental housing, expansion of ownership opportunities for veterans and low-income Californians, and establishment of permanent housing programs for individuals experiencing homelessness. The bonds would provide $6.25 billion for the Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) to build affordable, supportive, and extremely low-income units, and $1.25 billion to the CalVet Home Loan Program to provide reimbursable loans to veterans and their families. Additional bond funds would be delegated to several established state housing programs, including the Portfolio Reinvestment Program, the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, the Serna Farmworker Housing Program, the Tribal Housing Grant Program, and University of California student housing programs. 

Bonds are a way for the state government to borrow money for up-front funding for projects. Bonds are sold to investors, and the state repays the investors, with interest over time. General obligation bonds are repaid from the state’s General Fund, the main operating account to which revenue from major taxes is directed and from which most state funds are spent. Bond debt repayment uses around 3% of annual General Fund revenues. 

Why voting YES on Proposition 1 matters:

• While California has prioritized affordable housing development over the last decade, the projects have often relied on one-time investments in a narrow group of programs. For example, the 2018 Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act was exhausted by the end of 2023 due to high demand. VOTING YES on Proposition 1 will create an opportunity for large-scale development and dynamic program investment, allowing the state to keep pace with housing demand and create meaningful opportunities for lower-income rental and ownership. 
• VOTING YES will create significant economic benefits across the state, including over 50,000 new construction jobs, and $1.3 billion in state and local tax revenue. Generally, state investments in affordable housing can earn up to 300% more in federal, local, and private investment, which provides a significant increase in the efficiency of the public funds. State investments in affordable housing leverage an estimated $4 in federal, local, and private money for every $1 of state funding. 
• VOTING YES will increase housing availability, and housing stability provides both personal and community benefits. Statistically, young people who grow up in affordable housing see increased median lifetime earnings of $51,000; supportive housing can save a measurable amount of state and local public service funding over time, and strategic building can increase the use of public transit and decrease local emissions.

• Proposition 1 has been endorsed by a broad coalition, including Courage California, ACLU California Action, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, California Housing Consortium, Disability Rights California, Evolve California, and the League of California Cities. It has also received the support of Gov. Gavin Newsom, Asm. Speaker Robert Rivas, and co-author Asm. Buffy Wicks.
• The campaign in support of Proposition 1 has received $2.1 million in donations, including from Building a Better California, the San Francisco Foundation, Self-Help Enterprises, and Century Housing Corporation.

• There is no significant statewide opposition to Proposition 1.

For two decades, California has maintained a Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) that serves as a rainy day fund that the state government can use during emergencies or financial crises. Proposition 2, also known as the Save for California’s Future Act, would increase the BSA fund’s cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenue. Additionally, Proposition 2 would exclude BSA contributions from the Gann Limit — approved by voters in 1979 — which limits the amount of tax revenue that the state can spend annually. 

Why voting YES on Proposition 2 matters:

• Since the BSA was established, it has been used to provide statewide support during the pandemic and through difficult budget years. VOTING YES will increase the cap on savings in this account annually, and fortify California against the financial impact of unexpected crises or federal budget cuts in the future. 
• Federal funding has become increasingly unreliable during the current administration. VOTING YES will ensure that California maintains a larger state-based stockpile of rainy day funds that can be easily accessed during difficult times. 
• California’s budget has seen unexpected surpluses and deficit swings in recent years, demonstrating significant volatility over time. VOTING YES will allow the state to stabilize its savings and continue to protect critical services, like education and public safety, from unexpected cuts.

• Proposition 2 has the backing of a strong Democratic legislative coalition, including State Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Gov. Gavin Newsom. It has also received the endorsement of the California Democratic Party.

• More fiscally conservative members of the legislature have argued that California has an overspending problem, not a savings problem. This coalition argues that reigning in spending and trimming the budget would be a more sensible solution than increasing savings in the rainy day fund. 
• Reform California, a right-wing group that is leading statewide efforts to block eligible Californians from voting (including Prop 39) and is backing extremist Republican candidates for office, is a top supporter of Proposition 2.

In 2012, Californians voted to institute higher income tax rates on high earners — single filers with incomes over $250k, or joint filers with incomes above $500k — from 2012 through 2018, providing critical revenue for public K–12 schools and community colleges after years of cuts to public services during the Great Recession. In 2016, voters approved Proposition 55 to extend the tax through 2030. This year’s Proposition 3 would make the tax permanent, adjust the eligible income brackets, and tie the threshold to inflation. The updated income brackets and their associated rates are:

• $361,000 to $433,000 (single filer) or $721,000 to $866,000 (joint) at 10.3%
• $433,000 to $721,000 (single filer) or $866,000 to $1.4 million (joint) at 11.3%
• Above $721,000 (single filer) or above $1.4 million (joint) at 12.3%

• The taxes collected through this initiative generate $5 billion to $15 billion annually, totaling about $120 billion since 2012. The funds are redistributed: 89% to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges. VOTING YES will allow the state to make these budget allocations permanent to continue to provide stable funding to public school systems, which can then invest in valuable academic, social, workforce, and professional programs that create an ongoing benefit to the state’s economy. Additionally, Prop 3 would continue to raise enough revenue to free up General Fund dollars for other public services and purposes. 
• California is already facing budget deficits, in part because of the deep cuts that Republicans enacted for health care and other critical services in H.R. 1 to subsidize massive tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations. VOTING YES will prevent a significant loss of revenue as federal cuts impact the state and Californians for years. 
• Proposition 3 continues the existing tax rates without raising them for any individual or household. VOTING YES will maintain the status quo and continue to provide adequate revenue for the state. 
• This tax only applies to the top 2% of California tax filers and creates an average of $10 billion in revenue annually. These taxes are collected from individuals who have benefitted from California’s resources and infrastructure. VOTING YES ensures that a small portion of that wealth is redistributed to schools and communities to provide similar opportunities to young people. 
• Failing to renew or make this tax permanent would provide a tax cut exclusive to the top 1%, putting an average of $59,000 back in their pockets annually. This would also mean that the top 1% would have a lower marginal tax rate than the bottom 20%. VOTING YES will ensure that California’s tax system does not regress, and that revenue continues to be available for investment in statewide education programs.

• The Yes on Proposition 3 campaign is led by the Californians for Protecting Public Education, Healthcare, and Budget Stability committee, funded by the California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, and California School Employees Association. The committee collected over 1.6 million signatures to qualify Prop 3 for the ballot. 
• Prop 3 is endorsed by Courage California, the California Democratic Party, SEIU California, California Professional Firefighters, California Nurses Association, California School Nurses Organization, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

• Proposition 3 has been opposed by the California Taxpayers Association, which has argued that making these tax rates permanent strains the state economy by limiting the use of the revenue and deterring investment. 
• The Pacific Research Institute has argued that removing the expiration date will incentivize high earners and their associated businesses to relocate to states with friendlier tax policy. This response could eventually result in a drop in revenue and the need to find other funding streams to support education initiatives in the state.

Since 2020, over $1 billion has been spent on California state candidate races, and wealthy donors and special interests have grown their influence in politics. Public financing of political campaigns would shift power back to everyday voters: candidates would be supported by taxpayer dollars and be more accountable to all residents. 

In 1988, California voters passed Proposition 73 to create a statewide ban on the use of public funding in political campaigns. As a result, only charter cities — cities that are governed by their own local charter (essentially, a local constitution) — have had the authority to provide public campaign financing. Of California’s 483 cities, 121 are charter cities. No other jurisdictions in the state have been permitted to allow the use of public financing. The legislature attempted to override Proposition 73 in 2016, but California law requires that voters participate in the adjustment of any voter-approved initiative. 

Proposition 4 will repeal the 1988 initiative and allow any jurisdiction within the state to pass its own guidelines on the use of public funding in campaigns. Proposition 4 will also require that jurisdictions establish spending limits and criteria for candidates to qualify for public funding, providing substantial guardrails around the practice. 

Why voting YES on Proposition 4 matters:

• Current campaign-finance laws have resulted in campaigns that are funded largely by super PACs, corporations, and dark money. These interests have an outsized influence on candidates’ policy positions, often outweighing the priorities and needs of voters, and candidates often feel the need to chase these larger-dollar donors to be competitive. VOTING YES will help to even the donor playing field between voters and wealthy interests and establish a viable path for candidates to focus on issues and voter connections instead of spending valuable time fundraising. 
• Even at the local level, viable campaigns often require a budget that can fund staff, paid media, and other campaign necessities. VOTING YES will allow grassroots candidates with limited resources to receive enough critical funds to launch and sustain a campaign and engage with voters on local issues. 
• There are several recent, high-profile examples of candidates winning elections against billionaire-funded candidates in charter cities and states where public funding is permitted, including Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. VOTING YES will codify the use of public funds in California elections and provide a pathway to opportunity for more candidates, who better reflect the values and diversity of their communities, to pursue campaigns that could lead to impactful public service. 
• Oversight of corporate PAC donations is limited, and campaign finance generally lacks transparency. Proposition 4 would require that jurisdictions develop criteria for the distribution of public funds to campaigns, including provisions that prohibit a candidate from using the dollars for legal fees, fines, or repayment of personal loans. VOTING YES will ensure that candidates are vetted, their use of public dollars has guardrails, and data on the use of public funds is available to voters. 
• California currently has five charter cities that have adopted public campaign funding initiatives: Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco. VOTING YES will ensure that all jurisdictions in California can benefit from this model if they decide to pursue it.

• Proposition 4 has been endorsed by many good governance and progressive groups, including Courage California, California Clean Money Action Fund, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters California, End Citizens United, ACLU of California, California Working Families Party, California Environmental Voters, California Federation of Labor Unions, and Progressive Democrats of America-California.
• Supporters view this initiative as an opportunity to reduce the influence of Big Money, increase the availability of politics to more voters and candidates, and improve the accessibility of elections.

• This initiative is opposed by the California Taxpayers Association, which objects to the use of public tax dollars to further boost the financial integrity of elections. They argue that elections do not carry the same neutrality as other tax-funded initiatives, like schools, libraries, and infrastructure, and that taxpayers cannot universally agree on the funding of individual candidates and platforms.

The California Constitution allows voters to recall elected statewide officials prior to the end of their term through a special recall election. Currently, special recall elections are accompanied by a simultaneous election to replace the recalled officer. Proposition 5 would amend this process by eliminating the same-day election to replace a recalled candidate. Instead, voters would decide on whether or not to recall a statewide officer in one election, and a replacement would be chosen by either a later special election, a gubernatorial appointment, or the next general election. Proposition 5 would allow the recalled officer to run again for the same seat, but would not permit them to be appointed back to the seat. 

Proposition 5 includes a carve-out for the recall of a sitting governor. Under that situation, the lieutenant governor would serve either the remainder of the term or until a special election to replace the governor could be scheduled, depending on when the recall occurred during the term.

Why voting YES on Proposition 5 matters:

• The current process of recalling and replacing during a single election can incentivize bad actors to pursue the removal of a public official while pushing forward a replacement candidate who would be unlikely to win a nomination under normal circumstances. Voter turnout in special recall elections is significantly lower than a regular primary or general election, so a less qualified or politically appealing candidate can often win the election without weathering a typical campaign cycle. VOTING YES will remove the advantage for these bad actors and require that anyone seeking to replace a recalled candidate must go through a special or general election campaign cycle. 
• Existing law does not allow a recalled candidate to run for their seat again, even if their recall has been devised and executed by a small group of motivated petitioners. VOTING YES will diminish the benefit to recall advocates by ensuring that a recalled official can run again for their seat and ultimately allowing the broader voting population to determine their fitness for office. 
• Recall elections are sometimes abused as a tool for political gamesmanship, allowing for the strategic removal of someone who has won a fair election, often by the people and interests who opposed the candidate in the original election. VOTING YES will limit the ways in which this tool can be weaponized and better protect the foundation of fair elections and representation that is essential to our democratic system. 
• Taxpayers bear the costs of recall elections, which are administered through the state and county elections offices. The failed 2021 recall election of Governor Newsom cost taxpayers over $200 million – nearly $175 million from counties and $26 million from the state. VOTING YES will reform the process to potentially reduce the number of recall special elections and save taxpayer dollars.

• Proposition 5 is supported by California Common Cause and League of Women Voters of California, who argue that the current recall election ballots are worded in ways that can confuse voters. They view Proposition 5 as a way to streamline the process and ensure that voters have the opportunity to select their preferred replacement through later elections. 
• SCA 1, the legislation that resulted in Proposition 5, was authored by Sen. Josh Newman and Asm. Isaac Bryan. They argued that the current model allows a replacement candidate with less than the majority of votes to take office, which is not permitted in any other state elections. Newman, a Democrat, was elected to the state Senate in 2016, then recalled and replaced by a Republican in 2018. He regained his seat in the 2020 election.

• Election Integrity Project California — a right-wing group founded by a former tea party activist and with ties to the Republican Party — has opposed Proposition 5 under the argument that allowing a lieutenant governor to replace a governor would not provide voters with a leader who has a different political identity or policy views. This demonstrates the standard misuse of recall elections as a means to switch the party affiliation of the person in office or to create a shortcut to Republican leadership after a loss in a fair election.

In recent decades, California’s extensive housing issues have included challenges of affordability, availability, and insurability, making long-term homeownership increasingly difficult for many residents. Proposition 37 seeks to address that issue by allowing qualified homebuyers to access a $25 billion bond fund — administered by the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) — to set up a second mortgage. To qualify for this program, a homebuyer would need to have been a California resident for at least one year, have an income at or below 200% of the median income for a family in the area of the home purchase, occupy the home as a primary residence, and make a down payment of at least 3%. The measure would offer a fixed-rate mortgage of the purchase price for homes under $1.5 million, and would require that the purchased home be newly constructed houses, townhomes, rowhouses, condominiums, or manufactured homes. 

Homebuyers are generally required to make a 20% down payment to purchase a home. The remaining 80% of the purchase price is secured through a 15- or 30-year mortgage loan. Proposition 37 would help qualified homebuyers who can make at least a 3% down payment secure a second fixed-rate mortgage loan for the up to 17% difference in down payment. According to Zillow, the average cost of a single family home in California is $773,000. Covering 3% of a down payment on a home of this price would require savings of $23,000. Thus, Proposition 37 is a narrow pathway to homeownership that will only be viable for a limited number of Californians. 

Top supporters of Proposition 37:

• Primary support has been organized through the California Coalition for Homeownership, and backers include the California Democratic Party and California Association of Realtors. Proposition 37 is also supported by Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Beccera, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and former Rep. Katie Porter. They argue that this program will increase housing affordability for middle class and first-time homebuyers. 
• Proposition 37 also has the support of several carpentry unions, which stand to see work and economic benefits for their members if new housing construction is increased across the state.

• There has been no organized public opposition to Proposition 37 as of summer 2026.

Proposition 38 will authorize an $8.4 billion general obligation bond for research in immunology and immunotherapy, with $4.2 billion to be directed to the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII). CIII is a research institute co-founded by the billionaire backers of this proposition, Dr. Gary Michelson and Meyer Luskin. Michelson is the chairman of the CIII board of directors, and Luskin is the treasurer. CIII received $200 million in start-up funding from the state, and is currently being built on the University of California, Los Angeles campus. The remaining $4.2 billion would be distributed across non-profit universities and medical research institutes through a competitive grant process that CIII would participate in, and grantees would be required to collaborate with CIII on clinical trials funded by the bond. 

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates that repayment of this bond fund will increase state costs by $500 million to $600 million annually for the next 20 years. Any resulting technology or medical therapies developed from the research funded through Proposition 38 would be sold at 20% lower than the national average, providing some benefit back to taxpayers. 

Why voting NO on Proposition 38 matters:

• California is home to many established, top immunology research institutions. VOTING NO will stop two billionaires from steering $4.2 billion in state funds to their own research institute that is not currently operational and lacks an institutional research track record. 
• The state is already facing budget deficits and funding shortages, largely due to the significant federal H.R. 1 cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and other critical programs. VOTING NO on Prop 38 will save the state from having to divert $500 million to $600 million in state funding each year from critical health and human services to bond repayment. 
• This year, the California state legislature passed the California Science and Health Research Bond Act, a $7.5 billion bond that will be on the March 2028 statewide ballot if signed by the governor by September 30. VOTING NO on Prop 38 will allow voters to approve a more equitable and transparent bond than Prop 38.

• The No on 38 campaign is led by Dr. Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at the Stanford School of Medicine and former associate director at the National Institutes of Health. Prop 38 is also opposed by Courage California, League of Women Voters of California, and former Legislative Analyst’s Office analysts.

• Proposition 38 is supported by the Yes on 38 committee and Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research & Cures, and it has the endorsement of ALS Association, Alzheimer’s Association, American Nurses Association of California, California Black Health Network, and Parkinson Association of Northern California. 
• Dr. Michelson and his affiliated Michelson Center for Public Policy have contributed $22 million to support Prop 38, and Luskin has given $5 million.

To register to vote, California law requires verification of their citizenship status, residency, and eligibility to vote with their date of birth, a government-issued identification, and the last four digits of their Social Security Number. Proposition 39 is a MAGA-led effort to amend the California Constitution to also require verification at the point of voting — voters would have to either list the last four digits of their government-issued ID on the outside of their mail-in ballot envelope or present those IDs to cast an in-person ballot. This measure would also require the state to provide free voter-identification cards to voters, require election officials to complete an annual citizenship-verification process on their voter rolls using available government data, report on the percentage of voters who have been citizenship verified annually, require the state auditor to report on government compliance every two years, and require the state legislature to pass additional laws. 

Why voting NO on Proposition 39 matters:

• California exceeds federal requirements for election security. California already requires ID verification during the registration process, and includes a signed citizenship attestation under penalty of perjury. Asking registered voters to complete this process again is intentionally designed to make it harder for people to vote, and VOTING NO will ensure that California continues to be a leading state on making voting more accessible for all eligible residents. 
• Requiring point-of-voting ID verification is going to create challenges for already disadvantaged groups, including low-income individuals who can’t afford to maintain a state-issued ID, individuals whose address does not match their ID due to instability of housing or displacement, and individuals who do not maintain a physical copy of their birth certificate or Social Security card. Data shows that young and Latino Californians would be most impacted by these barriers. VOTING NO will prevent the state from disenfranchising a registered voter if they cannot produce a document on demand.
• National and state data continues to show that voter fraud is extremely rare, making up a fraction of a percentage point of overall voting in the United States. VOTING NO will ensure that California does not waste millions of dollars and disenfranchise eligible voters in an effort to solve a problem that does not exist. 
• Proposition 39 includes administrative requirements of annual citizenship verification and state audit compliance reports, free voter-identification cards, and potential additional costs determined by the state legislature. These efforts are estimated to cost the state tens of millions of dollars in an already tight state budget. VOTING NO will ensure that California does not need to allocate significant funds for ongoing and duplicative voter-verification efforts.

• Proposition 39 is opposed by the California Democratic Party, ACLU, California Common Cause, League of Women Voters California, Planned Parenthood, California Teachers Association, California Nurses Association, SEIU California, United Domestic Workers, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, Xavier Becerra, and democratic leaders across the state. Courage California sits on the California for Voting Rights committee in opposition. 
• Opponents view this conservative effort as a local attempt to seed the Trump administration’s election denialism within the state’s voting infrastructure, and argue that it would intimidate voters and reject legitimate ballots.

• Proposition 39 was led in the legislature by two MAGA Republican members, Asm. Carl DeMaio and Sen. Tony Strickland, and has the endorsement of the California Republican Party. Notably, Republicans have not had a voter registration advantage in the state for decades, and have led multiple efforts to keep eligible Californians — especially residents from communities that tend to lean toward Democrats — from voting. 
• Supporters argue that presenting ID at the polls is standard practice in many countries, and that around half of other U.S. states require it. They claim the requirement is common sense, but election experts agree that policies like Prop 39 make it harder for people to vote and contribute to election outcomes that do not reflect the diversity of voters.

Proposition 40 would issue a one-time 5% tax on taxpayers who have accumulated wealth and covered assets, including trusts, capital stock, and bonds, in excess of $1 billion. This measure would make the tax retroactive to billionaires who lived in the state on January 1, 2026, and would allow the tax to be paid across five equal installments starting in 2027. The taxes, and any subsequent interest, would be deposited into a newly created Billionaire Tax Reserve Fund, with 90% designated for health care, and 10% designated for education and food assistance. Revenues are expected to be between $40 and $100 billion over the five-year life of the tax, and would be used to fund Medi-Cal and other health coverage for 15 million Californians, access to CalFresh, CalFAP, CalFood, and public education initiatives for K–12 and community college systems. 

Prop 40 would be undermined by two competing initiatives that we recommend voters oppose: Prop 41 to audit new tax spending and Prop 42 to prohibit new personal property tax and retroactive taxes. Both propositions are funded by billionaires to avoid the Prop 40 wealth tax and any future wealth taxes. If all three measures pass, Prop 40 must win a higher number of votes than Props 41 and 42 to become law.

Why voting YES on Proposition 4 matters:

• The Trump administration’s H.R. 1, often referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill, established ongoing cuts to both CalFresh and Medi-Cal, which began in July 2025 and will continue through October 2028. Medi-Cal cuts include shifting administrative program costs to the state, freezing Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented adults, reducing the full scope of medical coverage for immigrants and establishing new managed-care provider payment limits. H.R. 1 cuts could cost California $2.3B to $5.1B per year. VOTING YES on Prop 40 will prevent 1.3 million Californians from losing Medi-Cal coverage, stop the closure of more essential hospitals and clinics, and keep health-care workers employed.
• Billionaires living in California were direct beneficiaries of H.R. 1 federal tax cuts for the wealthy that were subsidized by historically high cuts to Medicaid and other vital services across the country. VOTING YES on Proposition 40 will allow California to recoup those funds and reinvest them directly into a severely threatened public health system.
• This one-time tax would affect about 250 billionaires with $2 trillion in total wealth living in California. VOTING YES on Prop 40 would allow California to deliver widespread health and education access to the majority while increasing the tax burden of a very small subset of residents.

• The committee in support, Save California Health Care and Public Education, is sponsored by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW). 
• Proposition 40 also has the endorsement of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Ro Khanna, Courage California, California Democratic Party, Democratic Socialists of America, UNITE HERE Local 11, Teamsters California, and the National Union of Healthcare Workers.

• Prop 40 is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Teachers Association, United Domestic Workers, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the California Medical Association. 
• Opponents argue that this one-time tax is a short-term solution to a long-term problem, and that it risks significant collateral effects. While this tax would bring in critical revenue over five years, there is no meaningful plan to replace those funds in the medium- and long-term. Under these circumstances, the very health and education programs Proposition 40 seeks to boost would see budget cuts and cancellation in the years after the tax funds dry up, if the H.R. 1 cuts are allowed to continue through the 2029 implementation timeline designed by federal Republicans.
• Some Prop 40 opponents argue that the initiative is unfair, restricting 90% of funding to health care instead of directing revenue into the state’s General Fund to support public programs across the board.
• Opponents also outline concerns that this tax could incentivize billionaires to leave the state and take their businesses and capital with them. This result would impact the state’s economy, stall job growth, reduce general tax revenues in the years to come, and make California less competitive and attractive to future business investments. 
• The No on Prop 40 campaign is predominantly funded by billionaires through their Building a Better California political action committee (PAC), which is also funding Yes on Prop 41 and Yes on Prop 42 to undermine Prop 40, and Yes on Prop 45 to take away community-centered environmental protections. The PAC has spent over $20M to oppose Prop 40. The top PAC and direct No on Prop 40 contributors:

Proposition 41 is designed to undercut Proposition 40, the tax on billionaires to fund health care and other services, by prohibiting the state from enforcing Prop 40 if it passes with fewer votes than Prop 41. Prop 41 would also establish two audit requirements for tax measures that are on the state ballot. The first requirement would be an audit of any tax-related ballot measures that have gathered 25% of the required signatures to qualify for the ballot; the audit findings would be included in the state voter-information guide. The second would require any state law or ballot initiative that establishes a new tax after January 1, 2026, to be subject to state audits every four years. Proposition 41 also includes a clause that would not allow for any new taxation that isn’t subject to the Gann Limit, which is the state’s spending cap. This requirement would effectively narrow voters’ ability to target future funding initiatives toward specific programs. Exceeding the state funding limit can trigger tax refunds and limit funding to critical state programs.

Proposition 41 is one of three related bills on the November ballot, alongside Proposition 40 and Proposition 42. Propositions 41 and 42 seek to create a constitutional and legal path to blocking the implementation of Proposition 40 and any future legislation like it. In the event that multiple measures pass, the one with the most votes will ultimately be implemented. 

Why voting NO on Proposition 41 matters:

• Proposition 41 would make any future attempt at passing special taxes more difficult by requiring an expensive, time-consuming audit prior to an election. VOTING NO allows voters the continued ability to directly determine the necessity and acceptability of any proposed special tax. 
• In Proposition 40, the revenue generated by the billionaire tax would be spent on health care and other services without being subjected to the Gann Limit, the state spending cap. These programs have seen dramatic cuts by congressional Republicans in the last year, and Proposition 41 will eliminate the opportunity for California voters to backfill specific program funding at scale. VOTING NO will ensure that Californians can continue to pass taxation measures that direct funds to programs most in need of support without triggering mandatory refunds.

• SEIU-UHW West, which is sponsoring Proposition 40, has been critical of Proposition 41 as a cynical attempt to confuse voters into voting against the billionaire tax. They argue that the primary intent of this measure is to help billionaires avoid paying their fair share, not to conduct meaningful audits of tax-related amendments. 
• Opponents of Proposition 41 view it as not only obstructive of the current attempt to tax billionaires, but also as a long-term blockade of progressive tax efforts in the state. Its passage would limit future attempts to expand the use of tax dollars across programs and projects, and diminish voters’ capacity to determine fiscal solutions to ongoing budget gaps and needs across the state.

• Proposition 41 is supported by Building a Better California, which is largely funded by tech and finance executives, many of whom would be subject to the billionaire’s tax outlined in Proposition 40 if it were to pass. The committee has raised over $48 million from Building a Better California, and has the support of Google founder Sergey Brin. 
• Supporters argue that the audits required under Proposition 41 would create greater transparency around the use of special tax dollars for voters and communities, and would allow a clearer lens into the distribution and benefits created by these dollars.

Proposition 42 is designed to undercut Proposition 40, the tax on billionaires to fund health care and other services by prohibiting the state from enforcing Prop 40 if it passes with fewer votes than Prop 42. Proposition 42 would change the California Constitution to bar any future new taxes on retirement savings, individual assets, and personal savings, and any retroactive taxes, like what is proposed in Prop 40. If passed, these limits on taxation would be in effect as of January 1, 2026, and would include an exemption for taxes established by the California State Legislature in response to a declared statewide emergency, like floods, fires, or fiscal crises. 

Proposition 42 is one of three related bills on the November ballot, alongside Proposition 40 and Proposition 41. Propositions 41 and 42 seek to create a constitutional and legal path to blocking the implementation of Proposition 40 and any future legislation like it. In the event that multiple measures pass, the one with the most votes will ultimately be implemented. 

Why voting NO on Proposition 42 matters:

• Proposition 42 would make any future attempt at passing special taxes more difficult by eliminating the ability to levy those taxes on certain kinds of wealth, like retirement savings and individually owned assets. VOTING NO gives voters the continued opportunity to directly vote on any proposed special wealth tax. 
• In Proposition 40, wealth eligible for taxation includes covered assets, and the revenue from that tax would be spent on health care and other social service programs in the state. These programs have seen dramatic cuts by congressional Republicans in the last year, and the passage of Proposition 42 will eliminate the opportunity for California voters to access the resources needed to backfill this specific program funding at scale. VOTING NO will ensure that Californians can continue to pass targeted and strategic taxation measures to direct funds to the programs most in need of support.

• SEIU-UHW West, which is sponsoring Proposition 40, has been critical of Proposition 42 as a cynical attempt to confuse voters into voting against the billionaire tax. They argue that the primary intent of this measure is to help billionaires avoid paying their fair share, not to create meaningful tax reform. 
• Opponents of Proposition 42 view it as not only obstructive of the current attempt to tax billionaires, but also as a long-term blockade of progressive tax efforts in the state. Its passage would limit future attempts to expand taxation for the wealthy, and diminish voters’ capacity to vote on fiscal solutions to ongoing budget gaps and needs across the state.

• Proposition 42 is supported by Building a Better California, which is largely funded by tech and finance executives, many of whom would be subject to the billionaire’s tax outlined in Proposition 40 if it were to pass. The committee has raised over $48 million from Building a Better California, and has the support of Google founder Sergey Brin. 
• Supporters argue that Californians should not be taxed on their financial portfolios and associated assets.

Currently, voters can pass local special and property tax initiatives with a simple majority, or 50%+1, of the vote. Proposition 43 would amend the California Constitution to raise this threshold to two-thirds of the vote, bringing it in alignment with the current vote requirement for special local tax measures that are added to the ballot by governing bodies and making it harder for voters to approve funding for local services. Proposition 43 would also prevent local jurisdictions from establishing ad valorem property taxes — taxes that are charged as a set percentage of the assessed fair market value of a property — with some exceptions. 

Proposition 43 came through a deal struck between state lawmakers and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which was supporting a similar, more harmful measure that would have raised the vote threshold to two-thirds and prohibited charter cities from establishing local real estate transfer taxes. The original measure would have challenged local tax initiatives, like the Measure ULA “mansion tax” that 58% of Los Angeles city voters passed in 2022. That initiative was ultimately withdrawn and will not appear on the November ballot. Asm. Buffy Wicks, who authored Prop 43 to prevent the original, more sweeping initiative from appearing on the ballot, opposes Prop 43 and is encouraging voters to vote no. 

Why voting NO on Proposition 43 matters:

• Proposition 43 would constrict voters’ authority to pass local tax changes initiated by citizens through a simple majority vote. VOTING NO will ensure that citizens retain heightened authority in initiating these types of tax initiatives in their communities. 
• Cities across California are facing budget deficits with the rise in costs, decreases in revenue, and the impacts of federal cuts to programs and services. These consistent and unique fiscal challenges often need to be resolved through local revenue measures to preserve local infrastructure. VOTING NO will ensure that Proposition 43 doesn’t make it harder for communities to maintain a tool to enact new tax measures as needed to support local residents.

• Proposition 43 is opposed by a coalition of labor unions, public education advocates, housing groups, and progressive organizations, including Courage California, SEIU California, California Professional Firefighters, Evolve California, and Nonprofit Housing Action Fund. The coalition views local tax revenues as a strong source for funding essential local services and infrastructure, like schools, emergency response, health care, and affordable housing.

• Proposition 43 has the support of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Party, and Reform California, which is led by right-wing Republican Asm. Carl DeMaio. These entities view the existing 50%+1 threshold as an unnecessary loophole in earlier tax measures that should now be closed.

Seven million Californians — including 1 in 3 Medi-Cal patients — depend on community-based health clinics for their primary care. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are typically open access and designed to serve all populations, accepting patients with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or no insurance coverage. FQHCs often offer a suite of health-care services, including medical, dental, and mental health resources. 

Proposition 44 would mandate that FQHCs operating in California spend 90% of their annual revenue on direct patient care and services that advance their mission, restricting vital administrative budgets to only 10%. It would also establish a financial penalty system for those clinics that do not comply, with proceeds from the fines directed into a state-operated account for clinical worker training and staffing. 

Why voting NO on Proposition 44 matters:

• Proposition 44 effectively limits FQHCs to a 10% administrative budget when federal Republicans’ cuts to health care are already threatening community-based clinics and affecting the most vulnerable Californians. Administrative costs include investments in staffing, services, and technologies that are essential to the operation of health-care clinics, and the support necessary to make healthcare accessible to all Californians, like health-care enrollment navigators, translation services, patient transportation, and quality care improvement programs. VOTING NO will ensure that individual FQHCs retain the flexibility to adequately serve their patients and allocate their budgets to keep clinics running smoothly. 
• FQHCs are required to be located or serve a high-need community. As such, they serve some of California’s most vulnerable community members, including low-income, elderly, and immigrant populations. VOTING NO will ensure that the services they depend on to access their health care aren’t limited by stringent budget restrictions. 
• Estimates indicate that noncompliance fees could total $1.7 billion in the first year if Proposition 44 passes, and many FQHC clinics would likely be forced to close or substantially cut services as a result. VOTING NO will ensure that these funds remain with the local clinics and that community members continue to have access to health care that is responsive to their needs. 
• Health care is a human right, and Proposition 44 seeks to further commodify access by limiting the way that a subset of clinics can utilize their resources. VOTING NO will deny another overreach that inserts politics into Californians’ health care.

• Proposition 44 is opposed by hundreds of community clinics and several prominent health-care associations, including California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and California Primary Care Association. It has also been publicly opposed by the California Democratic Party, Courage California, and Black Women for Wellness Action Project. 
• Opponents argue that existing state and federal regulations on FQHCs are robust and substantial, and that the additional 90% budget requirement is an unnecessary layer of oversight.

• Proposition 44 is being supported by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers (SEIU-UHW), which has supported similar legislation in recent years. They argue that more health-care cuts are coming from the federal H.R. 1 legislation, and that limiting FQHC costs will help to deflect the impact on local clinics. Their argument assumes that budget dollars are disproportionately allocated to executive pay, and that critical administrative costs are simply unnecessary overhead.

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) — which has been in place since 1970 — creates standard requirements around the public disclosure of the environmental impact of state and local development projects. These environmental review disclosures are required for any project that uses public funding or requires governmental approval, and are intended to provide communities with the information and time to mitigate the damage from projects that have been evaluated to have negative impacts on the local environment. CEQA is a powerful tool, and is sometimes the only tool, for communities to limit the pollution from projects, such as warehouses, power plants, pipelines, and data centers.

Proposition 45 would shift power from the public to developers by establishing an expedited, 30-day deadline for the environmental review process and requiring quicker action and approval for projects designated as essential. It would also reduce current requirements for public review, including considerations of building options that would have negative environmental impacts, and reduce the time window and project delay options available through court review.

Why voting NO on Proposition 45 matters:

• CEQA is widely viewed as a landmark piece of legislation that creates meaningful, public-driven environmental reviews that allow local jurisdictions to intervene on building projects with an environmental impact. VOTING NO will protect this effective legislation from being weakened for the benefit of developers. 
• California experiences annual environmental crises, including wildfires, earthquakes, and coastal flooding, all of which are associated with human-made climate change. CEQA provides a backstop for development projects that can contribute to these types of disasters, and provides a way for local officials and communities to counteract projects that are deemed to have significant negative environmental impacts. VOTING NO will maintain reasonable timelines for intervention and protect local jurisdictions and their authority over new development. 
• Accelerating development serves wealthy developers and their investors while leaving California communities to shoulder the long-term impacts. VOTING NO will ensure that local communities can continue to have a significant voice in the way development is advanced across the state.

• The No on Proposition 45 campaign is led by People Over Polluters, and has the support of a significant number of groups across health-care, urban planning, transit, labor, environmental justice, and clean energy. Supporters include Courage California, California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, ACLU Southern California, American Nurses Association-California, LA Forward, California Bicycle Coalition, California Federation of Labor Unions, California Federation of Teachers, National Wildlife Federation, NRDC Action, and California Democratic Party. 
• Many local community organizations oppose Prop 45, such as Alianza Coachella Valley, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, Riverside Neighbors Opposing Warehouses (R-NOW), United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles, and West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. 
• These groups argue that this gutting of CEQA will harm air and water quality, impact public health, and prioritize polluters and their costly projects. They argue that Proposition 45’s attempt to speed up the environmental review and development process will boost the earnings of developers while saddling communities with the cost of pollution cleanup. 
• A nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has estimated that Proposition 45 will cost taxpayers up to $100 million annually.

• Proposition 45 is led by the Committee to Build an Affordable California, and has the support of the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Building Industry Association, PG&E, and Southern California Edison. Some housing groups also support Prop 45, like the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and Housing Action Coalition. 
• Supporters view the existing environmental review process under CEQA as unnecessarily arduous, costly, and bureaucratic, and argue that it also passes unnecessary costs down to consumers over time.