November 2026 Propositions Guide

Summary

Proposition 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in general-obligation bonds for affordable housing and homeownership programs. Most of the funding—$7.2 billion—would support building, buying, or renovating rental housing. Other allocations would support homeownership programs, veterans, farmworkers, infrastructure needed for housing, tribal housing, local pilot programs, and student housing at California public universities. The state would repay the bonds over time from the General Fund.

The Rose Institute backgrounder lists the California Democratic Party, Governor Gavin Newsom, ACLU California Action, the League of California Cities, and the California-Hawaii NAACP State Conference as supporters. Supporters argue the bonds would expand affordable housing and homeownership assistance, including programs for veterans.

The backgrounder names State Assemblymember David Tangipa and Reform California among opponents. It notes that no official opposition campaign had formed as of September 19, 2026. Opponents argue the measure would add long-term debt and spending when the state could use existing resources to support veterans and affordable housing.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates General Fund costs of about $500 million to $600 million per year for 25 years. Payments from veterans participating in the housing program would reduce the amount the state must repay. Administrative costs would also increase, though the backgrounder says they are covered within planned bond spending.

Summary

Proposition 2 would strengthen the state’s Budget Stabilization Account, commonly called the rainy day fund. It would raise the fund’s cap from 10% to 20% of estimated General Fund tax revenues, set aside more revenue in strong budget years, broaden the kinds of state debt that can be paid down with those set-aside funds, extend the debt-paydown requirement by 10 years to 2039–40, change how reserves count toward the state spending limit, and simplify the process for declaring a budget emergency.

The Rose Institute backgrounder lists the California Democratic Party, Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the LA Chamber of Commerce, and the League of Women Voters of California as supporters. They argue that larger reserves could help the state handle revenue downturns, protect public services, discourage overspending during high-revenue years, and pay down debt faster.

The backgrounder lists the California Republican Party, Reform California, and the California Chamber of Commerce as opponents. They argue the measure could make taxpayer rebates less likely, reduce funding available for infrastructure or urgent needs, and allow reserve funds to repay unemployment-insurance debt without fixing underlying problems in that system.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the measure to increase state reserves and could allow the state to repay debt more aggressively. The actual effect would depend on future revenue and spending conditions.

Summary

Voting Yes would make a temporary income tax increase on Californians with higher incomes permanent instead of allowing it to expire in 2031. The tax applies to income above certain inflation-adjusted thresholds, currently around $371,000 for single filers. The measure would direct most of the resulting revenue toward public education and make additional funding available for health care and other state programs.

Supporters, including the California Teachers Association, California State PTA, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, say the measure would provide stable funding for schools and health would provide stable funding for schools and health care.

Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California, and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, argue that the state should improve its spending before extending the tax.

Summary

Voting Yes on 4 would remove California’s current ban on using public money to fund political campaigns, allowing state & local governments to create public campaign-financing programs if they choose. The proposition itself would not create a campaign financing program, and future programs would have to follow rules about who could receive public funds, how the money could be spent, and spending limits.

Supporters, including the League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, and the California Democratic Party, say public financing could help candidates who do not have access to wealthy donors compete in elections.

Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, argue that taxpayer money should be used for public services rather than political campaigns and that the measure leaves important details to future governments.

Summary

Voting Yes would change how California handles recalls of state officials by removing the part of the recall ballot that asks voters who should replace the official. Voters would only decide whether to remove the official, and the vacancy would then be filled through existing appointment or special-election rules. If the Governor were recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would generally become Governor, with certain circumstances allowing for a later election.

Supporters, including the League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause, argue that the current system can allow a replacement candidate to win with a small share of the vote and that separating the recall from the replacement election would make the process clearer.

Opponents, including Republican leaders, argue that voters should be able to choose a replacement immediately, instead of giving politicians power over who fills a vacant position.

Summary

Prop 37 would give out $25 billion in loans to prospective home owners. These home owners would be given private loans to purchase up to 17 percent of a newly constructed home's price. Homebuyers will repay the loan in monthly installments. From there, because the loans are private, if homebuyers default their loans, tax payers would suffer none of the damages.

Realtors, the California Democratic Party, and the carpenters union all support this proposition, and which would let more Californians own homes.

However, countless other factors such as property taxes, repairs, and insurance could make it difficult to keep the home. If people fail to pay their loans, won’t this lead to even further debt? These are all questions to consider before voting Yes or No on Prop 37.

Summary

Prop 38 surrounds immunology, meaning the study of the immune system, promoting research on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s. An $8.4 billion bond would be created, with half of the money going to a research institute associated with the University of California, and the other half given to non-profits and other public universities.

Since the Trump administration has cut funding for medical research, proponents argue that this could aid in the creation of new drugs that would have otherwise not have been funded. If drugs were to be created, they would be discounted 20 percent of Californians, and 10 percent of profits would go back to the state general fund.

However, state funding would potentially be locked up solely in immunology, which, while important, is not the only field in health that needs to be studied. There is also doubt on how effective the research will be in turning a profit, especially with half of the funds going to just one research institute.

Summary

Voting ‘YES’ would require voters to present government-issued identification to vote, require election officials to use their best efforts to verify that voters are U.S. citizens, and create a free-state-issued voter identification card available upon request. The specifics are not defined so more laws will need to be passed for this measure.

Proponents (California Republican Party, Reform California, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) argue that it increases trust and security in California’s elections.

Opponents (California Democratic Party, American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters) argue that it would place a burden on voters who have disabilities, low-incomes, changed their last name (especially married women), or have recently moved. Fiscally, it is estimated that Proposition 39 would increase government costs by tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Summary

Voting Yes on 40 would create a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires, with 90% of the funding going toward healthcare and 10% going to K-14 education and food assistance.

Supporters, including multiple healthcare worker unions and the California Democratic Party, argue that the tax could help replace federal funding cuts to healthcare, education, and food assistance.

Opponents, including Governor Gavin Newsom, gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, the California Teachers Association, and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, argue that the tax could encourage wealthy residents and businesses to leave California, reducing long-term tax revenue.

Summary

Voting Yes on 41 would require the California State Auditor to review programs funded by special taxes before voters decide on them, checking their effectiveness, costs, and accountability.

Supporters, including the California Taxpayers Association and the California Republican Party, argue that the proposition would give voters reliable information about government spending and strengthen the state’s preexisting spending limit.

Opponents, including the California Democratic Party and SEIU-United Healthcare Workers, argue that the proposition could add unnecessary audit costs and prevent Proposition 40’s billionaire tax from taking effect, reducing funding for healthcare, education, and food assistance.

Summary

Voting Yes on Prop 42 would prohibit California from imposing new taxes on the ownership of most financial assets and other personal property.

Supporters, including the California Taxpayers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce, argue that the proposition would protect Californians’ savings and retirement accounts from extra taxes and help prevent wealthy residents from leaving the state.

Opponents, including the California Democratic Party and multiple healthcare worker unions, argue that the proposition could prevent Proposition 40’s billionaire wealth tax from taking effect and limit the state’s ability to raise revenue for public services.

Summary

Voting Yes on Prop 43 would demand that all local special taxes that are proposed, including citizen-initiated taxes, gather a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority in order to pass.

Supporters such as the California Republican Party, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argue that this proposition would fill in any loopholes in the law, and would prevent unnecessary taxes from being imposed.

Opponents such as the California State Association of Counties and the League of Women Voters of California, argue that this proposition may make it harder for local governments to fund money for significant local services including housing and firefighting, and would also make it difficult for local governments to raise their revenue.

Summary

Voting Yes on Prop 44 would mandate that health clinics spread throughout the community spend 90% of their revenue on services that reflect their healthcare mission, rather than administrative and other costs.

Supporters including the SEIU- United Healthcare Workers Union, argue that this proposition would improve care at these clinics, and would prevent clinic CEOs from gaining an excessively high salary.

Opponents such as the California Republican Party, argue that this proposition can stop clinics from spending on meaningful services such as equipment repair, and could force many clinics to close, which could ultimately cause an overburdening of emergency rooms and other healthcare services.

Summary

Voting Yes on Prop 45 would allow for faster environmental reviews on “essential” projects including, housing, water, clean energy, and others, by creating deadlines for these reviews.

Supporters such as the California Hospital Association, argue that this proposition would increase the efficiency of these projects by mitigating delays and lawsuits, while maintaining CEQA’s core protections.

Opponents such as the California Democratic Party, argue that this proposition is unnecessary because of new legislative amendments to CEQA, and that review processing being shortened could reduce the quality of these reviews, thus leading to bad planning and negative impacts for taxpayers.