California Statewide Ballot Propositions
Fourteen measures, in ballot order — November 3, 2026
Back to simplified viewPrepared by Indivisible El Dorado · Campaign finance figures current as of September 10, 2026
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.
| Prop. | Official Title (CA Secretary of State) | In Plain Language — Who Benefits, Who Pays | Who Supports? / $ Reported | Who Opposes? / $ Reported | Cost to Taxpayers / Revenue (LAO) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute. | $11.25 billion affordable housing & veterans housing bond 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. | 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 | Republican state legislators. No opposition committee has reached the $1 million FPPC reporting threshold. No reported spending | 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. |
| 2 | Increases State's Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. | Raise the cap on rainy-day reserve deposits 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. | Gov. Newsom and legislative Democrats. No committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold. No reported spending | Legislative Republicans. No committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold. No reported spending | 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. |
| 3 | Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | Make the Prop 30 (2012) high-earner income tax permanent 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. | 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 | California Taxpayers Association. No opposition committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold. No reported spending | 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. |
| 4 | Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute. | Allow public financing of state and local campaigns 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. | 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 | California Taxpayers Association. No committee has reached the $1 million threshold. No reported spending | 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. |
| 5 | Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. | Drop the "who replaces them" question from recalls 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. | 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 | Election Integrity Project California. No committee has reached the $1 million threshold. No reported spending | 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. |
| 37 | Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute. | $25 billion down-payment loan program for middle-income buyers 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. | 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 | No organized opposition identified; no committee has reached the $1 million reporting threshold. No reported spending | 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. |
| 38 | Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. | $8.4 billion immunology and immunotherapy research bond 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. | 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 FPPC summary shows $48,200,000 while itemized filings total $36,200,000. We publish the itemized figure. | Robert Kaplan, former associate director of the National Institutes of Health. No opposition committee has reached the $1 million threshold. No reported spending | 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. |
| 39 | Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | Voter ID and citizenship-verification requirements 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. | 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 | 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 | 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. |
| 40 | Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. | One-time 5% billionaire wealth tax for health care and education 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. | 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 | 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 | 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. |
| 41 | Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | Audits and spending-cap rules for new special taxes — a counter-measure to Prop 40 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. | Building a Better California ($58.25M — funded chiefly by Sergey Brin and John Doerr), Reform California, California Chamber of Commerce. $58,271,808 | 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 Same SEIU-UHW money counted against Props 40, 41 and 42. | 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. |
| 42 | Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | Ban new taxes on financial assets and personal property — a counter-measure to Prop 40 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. | 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 FPPC summary shows $60,772,537.26 while itemized filings total $64,272,537.26. We publish the itemized figure. | 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 Same SEIU-UHW money counted against Props 40, 41 and 42. | 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. |
| 43 | Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. | Two-thirds vote required for citizen-initiated local special taxes 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. | 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 | 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 | 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. |
| 44 | Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute. | 90% patient-care spending mandate for nonprofit safety-net clinics 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. | SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West, the sole major funder, through Californians for Responsible Healthcare. $16,929,634 | 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 | 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. |
| 45 | Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute. | CEQA streamlining and litigation limits for "essential" projects 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. | 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 | 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 | 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 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 and analysis links: Legislative Analyst’s Office, November 3, 2026 ballot analyses (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.