I’ve long found California’s proposition system to be frustrating and opaque. It feels like they’re written in the most misleading way possible. But, because they allow a simple majority of voters (50% + 1) to put language directly into the CA constitution, I want to make sure I really understand each of them before voting. And given that I’ve spent so much time reading up on them, I’ve made it a habit to share the fruits of my effort.
Each prop below is marked with a ✅ or ❌ based on whether or not I’ll be voting for or against them. Each section will also link to Cal Matters, a non-partisan informational site that has a bunch more info on each prop if you want to do any additional reading.
Because props are (relatively) easy to add and hard to remove, my general rule is “vote no unless you have a compelling reason otherwise”.
Table of Contents / Summary
✅ Prop 1
Prop 1 allows the state to sell bonds to fund affordable housing programs. A similar prop was passed back in 2018 and has since been spent.
2026’s incarnation was put on the ballot by the state legislation (because bond measures have to be explicitly approved by voters; TIL!). There’s been 0 financial opposition to this one and $12.4M in support (lead by AirBnB).
The SF Chronicle’s endorsement goes into more detail about how the raised funds will be spent, and they all seem like good uses of the money. Bonds can be an expensive way to fund projects, but if the alternative is no money at all, then you gotta do what you gotta do. Let’s build housing!
✅ Prop 2
Prop 2 is a procedural change that changes how much excess tax revenue the state can save (from 10% to 20% annually).
The main motivation is creating a larger safety net for the state. Because our State’s tax revenue is heavily dependent on the health of the stock market (and the resulting capital gains taxes), down years for the economy also mean down years for the state. It also helps us weather financial attacks from the federal government, since we’ve built up more cushion.
It does make it less likely that we hit the Gann limit, the line at which excess tax revenues must be refunded to taxpayers. But state mandates still need to be fulfilled, so taxpayer refunds do outsized damage to the budget. The prop seems like a win overall.
✅ Prop 3
Prop 3 makes a current high-earners tax to fund education permanent. It’s not a net-new tax; the prop just prevents an existing tax from expiring (in 2031). Failing to renew this tax before expiration would cause a huge shortfall for school funding.
I don’t love that the tax was billed as “temporary” when it was introduced in 2012 and is now being made permanent. But, it’s also not really time to be cutting spending on education. If we didn’t pass this prop now, we’d have another chance to renew the tax in 2028 and 2030. In a perfect world, I’d rather see another extension instead of a “permanent” duration, but I’ll take what I can get, I guess.
❌ Prop 4
Prop 4 would allow state and local governments to fund campaigns using tax dollars (which has been forbidden since 1988).
By providing a stable funding floor for all local campaigns, this prop could enable smaller campaigns to compete in a way they wouldn’t have had the funds to do before. But serious campaigns can already raise the money they need and I like my tax money to be spent elsewhere. Campaigns, for better or worse, should just pay their way.
✅ Prop 5
Currently, a recall vote on a ballot appears alongside a question about who should replace the person if the recall passes. Notably, the replacement only needs a plurality of votes, not a majority. As a result, candidates who don’t have wide support can assume office during a recall (fun fact: this is how Schwarzenegger was originally elected).
Prop 5 adjusts the rules around recalls. Instead of two questions (“should this person be recalled” and “who should take their place”), ballots would only cover the recall and the replacement (if needed) would get their own special election later.
I’m not a fan of the way that it doubles the number of elections it takes to complete a recall (elections are expensive to run), but I do like the way it requires candidates to receive a majority of the votes. I think it’s a worthwhile change.
✅ Prop 37
Prop 37 allows the state to borrow money to help cover the cost of a down payment on behalf of prospective low- and medium-income home buyers. Because the buyers would assume the debt, it’s revenue neutral for the state.
This prop doesn’t change anything about the supply of housing or the overall cost, it just reduces the up-front cash required to buy one. It’s sponsored by the California Association of Realtors, who have a vested interest in making home buying as accessible as possible (while not actually changing the price).
But, it also helps people build wealth who couldn’t before, and that seems like a net win. Given that it doesn’t cost the taxpayers anything, it seems harmless enough while doing a bit of good.
❌ Prop 38
Prop 38 approves $8.4B in bonds for immunotherapy research, promising the state a cut of the returns of any therapies created. Half the money goes to competitive grants, while the other half goes to “a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute”.
While that sounds reasonable, the prop stipulates that the nonprofit must meet a strict set of qualifications. CalMatters did some research and found that the only organization that could receive that money is UCLA’s “California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy”. And you’ll never believe this, but Gary Michelson, who has personally funded the prop to the tune of $43M, is on the board of directors for that very same organization. That’s a funny coincidence!
Political underhandedness aside, bonds are bad way to finance medical research (which may not bring financial return). It would also lock a bunch of medical funding into a really specific area of focus focus (even if that doesn’t end up being the right area of research long term).
❌ Prop 39
Prop 39 requires a government ID to vote in California. It would also invalidate mail-in ballots that don’t include digits from the corresponding ID.
Voter ID laws always sound reasonable on paper, but in practice they mostly disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters. Despite years of investigations, there’s been no evidence of widespread voter fraud at state or national levels. This is a waste of everyone’s time.
❌ Prop 40
Prop 40 would levy a 1-time tax, 5% tax on residents with assets worth more than $1B (roughly 250 people). That money would be primarily on healthcare and partially on education. It’s designed to shore up future state budget shortfalls created by Trump’s cuts to healthcare in the recent federal budget.
As you can imagine, Prop 40 has garnered a ton of interest both locally and nationally. It’s first-of-its kind legislation, plays into growing social unrest around wealth inequality, and promises a tangible approach to wealth redistribution.
Though simple on its surface, figuring out how I wanted to vote for it required answering a few questions.
Could this be applied to everyone in the future?
The fearmongering around this prop focuses on the fact that there’s a loophole which allows legislators to amend who it applies to. CalMatters dug in and concluded that it technically could be, but an adjustment to that level is unlikely to hold up in court.
So unless you’ve got more money than you could ever need, this law won’t affect your finances directly.
Is a one-time tax the right way to raise the funds?
Any one-time tax creates a “fiscal cliff” where money that was previously available in the budget disappears, and you’re back to square 1. Next time you need funding for the same thing, you either have to extend/revisit the tax or take another approach (see Prop 3 above).
While Prop 40 would fix the short term, we’d still be reliant on future federal budgets to fix things in a more sustainable manner.
Does the money go to healthcare?
Though the money is earmarked “primarily for health care”, that’s a pretty broad mandate. Lots of business fall under “health care”, including insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Prop 40 doesn’t directly replace the medi-cal funds we’re losing.
And interestingly, both the CA Medical Association and CA Teachers Association oppose the prop, which is interesting behavior from the presumed beneficiaries of the funds. They both cite the lack of sustainability in the source and the lack of control over where the money flows.
That said, while Planned Parenthood officially opposes the bill, employees of the CA chapter have been vocally disagreeing with that stance.
In the end
So after all that, I’m ultimately a No on 40. I think billionaires should be paying more taxes, but the prop has too many problems as written.
We shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good, but we also shouldn’t let that maxim support substandard legislation. And whenever I’m on the fence about a prop, “no” is always the safe bet.
❌ Prop 41
Prop 41 “nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit”.
Prop 41 is a “poison pill”, filed in direct opposition to Prop 40. If Prop 41 passes, then Prop 40 would be nullified (regardless of whether it received enough votes).
These opposition props are almost always stupid. Regardless of how you vote on Prop 40, it’s an easy “no” on Prop 41.
❌ Prop 42
Prop 42 prohibits new taxes on existing property and is another attempt to quash Prop 40.
Much like Prop 41 above, Prop 42 is another easy “no”.
❌ Prop 43
Prop 43 increases the percentage of votes needed to pass local special taxes (from 50% to 2/3), making it harder to raise local taxes.
Proponents argue that there have been loopholes knocked in Prop 13 over the years and this will “fix them”. Opponents say that it takes local tax control away from the majority of residents, potentially starving organizations of much-needed funds.
I find the second argument more compelling: if 65% percent of voters are in favor of a new tax and that’s not enough to get it passed, then something is wrong with the system.
❌ Prop 44
Prop 44 introduces requirements for health care clinics that serve low-income clients to spend above 90% of their funds on patient care.
While that sounds reasonable on the surface, most healthcare-specific spending percentages are already in the 80s and enforcement of this rule would jeopardize clinics that are doing good work at a time where state-level heath care is already in trouble.
This prop is almost universally opposed, including by major state newspapers and medical associations. Only the prop’s sponsor, “SEIU United Health Care Workers” is in favor. I’m not sure what their angle is here.
❌ Prop 45
Prop 45 weakens California’s landmark Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), limiting the length of environmental reviews for important infrastructure (bridges, schools, etc) to promote development.
This is a tricky one. On the one hand, NIMBY groups can use CEQA to stymie building for long periods of time. On the other hand, a thorough environmental review is an important step for large projects. While reviews can run long, artificially limiting their duration means bad choices have a better chance of slipping through.
Newspapers, including the Sac Bee (which I’ve mostly agreed with) are in favor of this one. But, I’ve landed on a “no” here. CEQA has its problems, but gutting it doesn’t solve them. The law can continue to be refined without losing all its teeth.