2026 General Election ยท California

California Statewide Ballot Propositions

Fourteen measures, in ballot order — November 3, 2026

View all 14 measures in a unified table →

Prepared by Indivisible El Dorado · Campaign finance figures current as of September 10, 2026

At a glance:

This year's ballot features bonds for housing, immunology research, and down-payment help; an extension of the high-earner income tax for schools and health care; a billionaire wealth tax (Prop 40) and two counter-measures (Props 41 & 42); plus Voter ID, campaign financing, recall reform, clinic spending, and more. Select a tab below for the full breakdown of each measure. Dollar figures are aggregated top-contributor totals from the FPPC and understate total fundraising.

What is fact and what is our opinion.

The official title, campaign finance figures and Legislative Analyst fiscal estimates are sourced and neutral. The “Who benefits / Who bears the cost” lines are Indivisible El Dorado’s own assessment, not the analyst’s. Reasonable people read these measures differently — follow the analysis links and decide for yourself.

Props 40, 41 and 42 conflict with one another: 41 and 42 were written to cancel 40.

Proposition 1
$11.25 billion affordable housing & veterans housing bond
Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute.
Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter: supports
Who benefits: Low-income renters, farmworkers, veterans buying homes, tribal housing, affordable-housing developers and building trades.
Who bears the cost: General Fund taxpayers — roughly a quarter of a percent of the state budget each year for 25 years, competing with other services.

Who Supports?

Gov. Newsom, Democratic legislators, California Apartment Association, AFL-CIO California. Two committees: Yes on Prop 1 — Californians for Homes, Jobs and Affordability ($3.61M; top donor Building a Better California, plus MidPen Housing $350K, Merritt Community Capital $250K, Self-Help Enterprises $200K, Silicon Valley Community Foundation $200K, San Francisco Foundation $200K, Adobe Services $150K, Jamboree Housing $150K) and Californians for Affordable Homes, sponsored by the NPH Action Fund ($1.03M; California Democratic Party is top donor to its Political Issues Committee).

$5,789,137 reported

Who Opposes?

Republican state legislators. No opposition committee has reached the $1 million FPPC reporting threshold.

No reported spending

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Increased state cost of $500–$600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the bond. The $1.25B veterans portion is repaid by participating veterans, at no direct state cost.

Proposition 2
Raise the cap on rainy-day reserve deposits
Increases State's Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Who benefits: Schools, Medi-Cal and safety-net programs that get cut first in a downturn; the state's borrowing costs.
Who bears the cost: Programs that could have been funded today with money the state must instead save; less budget flexibility in good years.

Who Supports?

Gov. Newsom and legislative Democrats. No committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold.

No reported spending

Who Opposes?

Legislative Republicans. No committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold.

No reported spending

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

No new tax. Requires deposits until reserves reach 20% of General Fund taxes (now 10%) and extends extra debt payments through 2040. Net effect: state budget reserves would be higher.

Proposition 3
Make the Prop 30 (2012) high-earner income tax permanent
Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Who benefits: K-12 schools, community colleges and health programs keep $5–$15 billion a year that would otherwise vanish in 2031.
Who bears the cost: The top 2% of California earners, who continue paying rates already in effect since 2012. No new tax on anyone else.

Who Supports?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong, California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Association, AFSCME. Committee: Yes on Prop 3 (top donors: CTA Issues PAC $18.28M; NEA $4M; CFT $1.75M; California School Employees Association $1.5M; SEIU California $1M; SEIU Local 721 $250K; SEIU Local 1000 $250K; Assn of CA School Administrators $100K; AFSCME $500K).

$27,625,000 reported

Who Opposes?

California Taxpayers Association. No opposition committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold.

No reported spending

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Maintains $5–$15 billion per year in state income tax revenue that would otherwise expire in 2031. Roughly 40% flows to K-12 schools and community colleges.

Proposition 4
Allow public financing of state and local campaigns
Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.
Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter: supports
Who benefits: Candidates without wealthy donor networks, and voters in districts where big money now decides primaries.
Who bears the cost: State and local budgets, if and when a government chooses to build a program. Large donors lose leverage.

Who Supports?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong, California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action. No committee has reached the $1 million threshold.

No reported spending

Who Opposes?

California Taxpayers Association. No committee has reached the $1 million threshold.

No reported spending

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Ongoing state cost of a few hundred thousand dollars per year (FPPC guidance). Creates no program itself; costs of any future state or local program would depend on later decisions and could be significant.

Proposition 5
Drop the "who replaces them" question from recalls
Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter: supports
Who benefits: Voters — ends the scenario where an official removed by 50.1% is replaced by someone winning far less.
Who bears the cost: County and state elections budgets, which may have to run standalone special elections. Fringe candidates lose a low-threshold path to office.

Who Supports?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong, League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, Secretary of State Shirley Weber. No committee has reached the $1 million threshold.

No reported spending

Who Opposes?

Election Integrity Project California. No committee has reached the $1 million threshold.

No reported spending

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Net effect unknown. In the event of a recall, state and local savings or costs of millions of dollars, depending on which office is recalled and whether a standalone special election is needed.

Proposition 37
$25 billion down-payment loan program for middle-income buyers
Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute.
Who benefits: Middle-income first-time buyers priced out of the market; homebuilders, Realtors and carpenters' unions.
Who bears the cost: Participating homebuyers, who repay the bonds with interest. No General Fund cost. Risk: demand-side aid can bid up prices if supply doesn't follow.

Who Supports?

Building a Better California ($6M), California Association of Realtors and its Issues Mobilization PAC, National Association of Realtors, Carpenters unions, former Sen. Bob Hertzberg. Committees: Yes on 37 — California Homeownership ($17.7M; co-lead funders CA Assn of Realtors IMPAC $6M and Building a Better California $6M) and Homeownership for Families ($7M; CA Assn of Realtors IMPAC $5M + National Assn of Realtors $2M).

$24,700,000 reported

Who Opposes?

No organized opposition identified; no committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold.

No reported spending

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

No direct state or local costs. Up to $25 billion in revenue bonds would be repaid by participating homebuyers' loan payments, not the General Fund.

Proposition 38
$8.4 billion immunology and immunotherapy research bond
Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.
Who benefits: Patients facing cancer, Alzheimer's and heart disease; UC campuses and the research institute selected to receive half the funds.
Who bears the cost: General Fund taxpayers, for about 20 years. Repayment from research revenue is possible but uncertain and could take decades.

Who Supports?

Dr. Gary Michelson, who is effectively the entire campaign: $8.2M given directly, $13M routed through the Michelson Center for Public Policy 501(c)(4), and $10M more into that nonprofit. Also Meyer Luskin ($5M), ALS Association, Alzheimer's Association, Blood Cancer United.

$36,200,000 reported
FPPC summary shows $48,200,000 while itemized filings total $36,200,000. We publish the itemized figure.

Who Opposes?

Robert Kaplan, former associate director of the National Institutes of Health. No opposition committee has reached the $1 million threshold.

No reported spending

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Increased state cost of $500–$600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the bond, with some or all offset if funded research generates revenue.

Proposition 39
Voter ID and citizenship-verification requirements
Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter: opposes
Berkeley IGS poll, Aug 17: 51% opposed, 42% in favor
Who benefits: Californians who distrust how elections are run. Confidence is the measure's most plausible real effect — the state has not documented noncitizen voting or impersonation at a scale that changes outcomes, so there is little fraud left for it to prevent.
Who bears the cost: Eligible voters without current government ID, who must obtain one or lose their ballot — a burden that falls hardest on elderly, rural, low-income and student voters. County elections offices and state taxpayers pay to build and run the verification system.

Who Supports?

Reform California (Carl DeMaio, $3.04M), Californians for Voter ID, Rep. Ken Calvert. Largest donor: Richard Uihlein of Wisconsin, $10.5M; also Nicole Shanahan, Douglas Leone, the Winklevoss brothers.

$15,417,980 reported

Who Opposes?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong, League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action. Two committees: No on 39 — Block Election Rigging ($8.52M; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria $2M, California Democratic Party $1,000,808, Reed Hastings $1M, SEIU Local 2015 $1M, CA State Assn of Electrical Workers $500K, Western States Carpenters $500K, NorCal Laborers $500K, CA State Council of Laborers $500K, SEIU California $512,500, State Pipe Trades Council $500K, CTA $500K) and No on Prop 39 — Californians for Voting Rights, sponsored by California Donor Table and the ACLU of Northern California ($3.76M; Patty Quillin $1.5M, Quinn Delaney $1.5M, ACLU NorCal $465,856, Wendy Munger $100K).

$12,277,754 reported

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

State and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement. Some offsetting savings possible from a smaller voter roll, but likely less than the costs.

Proposition 40
One-time 5% billionaire wealth tax for health care and education
Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Berkeley IGS poll, Aug 17: 48% in favor, 41% opposed
Who benefits: Medi-Cal patients, community clinics, food assistance and schools — tens of billions of dollars over several years.
Who bears the cost: Roughly 200 California billionaires. The state may also lose under $1 billion a year in income tax if some relocate.
Two measures on this ballot target this one

Props 41 and 42 are both funded by the same donors and both are written to cancel this measure. If either one passes with more “yes” votes than Prop 40, courts could find them in conflict and block Prop 40 from taking effect — even if Prop 40 also passes.

Who Supports?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Teamsters California, AFSCME California. SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West is the sole major funder, through the Yes on 40 — Billionaire Tax Now — No on 41 & 42 committee, sponsored by SEIU-UHW.

$31,426,982 reported

Who Opposes?

Gov. Newsom, California Teachers Association, California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association. Committees: No on Prop 40 ($29.7M — Building a Better California $29.5M, the Brin and Doerr vehicle) and Golden State Promise ($10.45M — Ripple Labs $5M, Chris Larsen $5M).

$40,150,000 reported

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years (90% must go to health care). Possible ongoing loss of under $1 billion per year in income tax revenue. Administration costs paid from the new revenue.

Proposition 41
Audits and spending-cap rules for new special taxes โ€” a counter-measure to Prop 40
Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Who benefits: Very high-wealth taxpayers, shielded from future special taxes; the tech donors funding the campaign.
Who bears the cost: Health, education and other programs that future special taxes would fund. Nullifies Prop 40 if it draws more votes.
Counter-measure to Prop 40

This measure is explicitly designed to counteract the Prop 40 billionaire wealth tax. If it passes with more “yes” votes than Prop 40, courts could find the two in conflict and block Prop 40 from taking effect even if it also passes.

Who Supports?

Building a Better California ($58.25M — funded chiefly by Sergey Brin and John Doerr), Reform California, California Chamber of Commerce.

$58,271,808 reported

Who Opposes?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong and the proponents of the billionaire tax (SEIU–UHW and allies). The Yes on 40 committee is registered as formally opposing this measure.

$31,426,982 reported
Same SEIU-UHW money counted against Props 40, 41 and 42.

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Net fiscal effect unknown. Increased State Auditor costs for new one-time and ongoing audits, mostly paid from the special-tax revenues themselves. May limit the state's ability to exclude new special-tax spending from its spending limit.

Proposition 42
Ban new taxes on financial assets and personal property โ€” a counter-measure to Prop 40
Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Who benefits: Holders of large financial assets, permanently exempted from any future tax on ownership.
Who bears the cost: The state's future revenue options, locked into the Constitution. Also nullifies Prop 40 if it draws more votes.
Counter-measure to Prop 40

This measure is explicitly designed to counteract the Prop 40 billionaire wealth tax. If it passes with more “yes” votes than Prop 40, courts could find the two in conflict and block Prop 40 from taking effect even if it also passes.

Who Supports?

Building a Better California ($64.25M — the same Brin and Doerr vehicle funding Prop 41), Reform California, California Chamber of Commerce, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

$64,272,537 reported
FPPC summary shows $60,772,537.26 while itemized filings total $64,272,537.26. We publish the itemized figure.

Who Opposes?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong and the proponents of the billionaire tax (SEIU–UHW and allies). The Yes on 40 committee is registered as formally opposing this measure.

$31,426,982 reported
Same SEIU-UHW money counted against Props 40, 41 and 42.

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

No immediate cost or revenue. Possibility that state tax revenues will not grow as much in the future, because the state loses the option of taxing asset ownership or enacting most retroactive taxes.

Proposition 43
Two-thirds vote required for citizen-initiated local special taxes
Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter: opposes
Who benefits: Commercial property owners, business associations and anti-tax organizations funding the measure.
Who bears the cost: Local services funded by voter-initiated special taxes — fire, emergency response, parks, libraries, transit. A 34% minority could block what a majority approves.

Who Supports?

California Business Roundtable Issues PAC ($9.85M), Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association ($1.04M), commercial real estate interests (Kilroy Realty $1M, Douglas Emmett $1M).

$13,973,218 reported

Who Opposes?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong. No on Prop 43 — Stop the Local Taxpayer Deception Act, sponsored by labor organizations ($1.6M: Western States Carpenters $500K, SEIU California $500K, CA Professional Firefighters $250,500, AFSCME $250K across two committees, NPH Action Fund $100K).

$1,600,500 reported

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

No state cost. Possibility that local government tax revenues will not grow as much in the future because of the higher vote threshold. Actual impact depends on future local measures.

Proposition 44
90% patient-care spending mandate for nonprofit safety-net clinics
Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.
Who benefits: Clinic patients, in theory, if the cap forces money out of administration and executive pay and into direct care. The measure's sole major funder is SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West, which has a long-running organizing dispute with the clinics it would regulate.
Who bears the cost: Community health centers serving low-income and uninsured patients. A 10% overhead ceiling counts patient outreach, interpreters, transportation and enrollment assistance as administration, so clinics may cut those services or close sites. The clinics themselves, the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood all oppose it.

Who Supports?

SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West, the sole major funder, through Californians for Responsible Healthcare.

$16,929,634 reported

Who Opposes?

California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Teachers Association, and individual clinics (AltaMed $5.47M, TrueCare $1M, Innercare $1M, Neighborhood Healthcare $920,550, Community Health Center Network / Alameda Health Consortium $779,410, WellSpace Health, North East Medical Services, Family Health Centers of San Diego, San Ysidro Health).

$16,714,879 reported

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Increased state enforcement costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees charged to affected clinics. Other uncertain state and local costs if clinics raise service spending or close.

Proposition 45
CEQA streamlining and litigation limits for "essential" projects
Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.
Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter: opposes
Who benefits: Developers, utilities and Chamber members; housing and infrastructure projects move faster and cheaper.
Who bears the cost: Communities near approved projects, whose ability to challenge review in court narrows; tribes without federal recognition lose consultation rights; state and local budgets initially.

Who Supports?

California Chamber of Commerce, Building a Better California ($10M), California Building Industry Association ($7.6M in the main committee plus $4.07M in a separate committee), Edison International ($2M), California Association of Realtors ($1.5M), PG&E, California Hospitals Committee on Issues, California Resources Corporation, CalChamber Non-Donor Funds ($2M), CA Business PAC ($1.35M — CRC Services / PG&E), Building Resilient Infrastructure PAC ($500K — PG&E-funded). Main committee: Yes on 45 — Building a More Affordable California.

$30,024,059 reported

Who Opposes?

Indivisible CA: StateStrong, Clean and Healthy California — a coalition of environmental organizations ($7M), State Building and Construction Trades Council of California ($4M across two affiliated PACs), District Council of Iron Workers ($500K). Wendy Schmidt is giving $5M directly. Committee: No on Prop 45, sponsored by labor, health and environmental organizations.

$16,504,465 reported

Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO)

Initial state and local costs likely in the high tens of millions annually, potentially over $100 million, partly covered by applicant and filing fees. Longer-term effects uncertain and potentially larger, in either direction.

How to read the money columns. Dollar figures are aggregated top-contributor totals reported to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for committees primarily formed to support or oppose each measure, current as of September 10, 2026. They cover only committees that have raised $1 million or more and count only contributors of $10,000 or more, so they understate total fundraising and exclude smaller committees entirely. "No reported spending" means no qualifying committee has crossed that threshold — not necessarily that no money has been raised. Final pre-election reports are filed in October; figures will rise.

Note on Props 40, 41 and 42. These three interact. If Prop 41 or Prop 42 passes with more "yes" votes than Prop 40, courts could find them in conflict and block Prop 40 from taking effect even if it also passes.

Sources. Official titles: California Secretary of State, Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures (sos.ca.gov). Fiscal estimates: Legislative Analyst's Office ballot analyses for the November 3, 2026 election (lao.ca.gov), which note that materials were subject to court ordered changes through August 10, 2026. Supporters and opponents: CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide. Endorsements: Sierra Club Angeles Chapter. Polling: Berkeley IGS, Aug 17 2026. Campaign finance: FPPC Top 10 Contributor lists, November 2026 General Election, and CA Secretary of State Cal-Access.

◆ Presented by Indivisible El Dorado. For informational purposes only. This document does not constitute an official endorsement.