2026 VOTER GUIDE | PART 7 of 8
STATE
Measures
STATE MEASURES
QUICK GUIDE
Scroll down for detailed analysis on each ballot measure.
Endorsed by La Defensa
- *VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 4 – California Fair Elections Act of 2026*
Other State Measures
- VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 1 – The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026
- VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 2 – Save for California’s Future Act
- VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 3 – The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2026
- VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 37 – California Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act of 2026
- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 38 – California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative
- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 39 – The California Voter ID Initiative
- VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 40 – 2026 Billionaire Tax Act
- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 41 – Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026
- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 42 – The Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026
- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 43 – Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment
- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 44 – The Clinic Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
- VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 45 – Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative (2026)
Stay connected for election updates!
Subscribe to our mailing list for post election analysis and updates on La Defensa projects!
STATE
MEASURES
PROP 4
California Fair Elections Act of 2026
✔️ Vote Yes
✅ Endorsed
- Summary
Proposition 4 removes California’s ban on using public money to finance election campaigns. It does not create a public financing program itself. Instead, it allows the state and local governments to create voluntary programs that give qualifying candidates public funds in exchange for spending limits and other requirements. To qualify, candidates must show broad-based support, such as collecting small contributions of no more than $10 from a set number of residents.
Public financing programs may not draw on funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Public funds also cannot be used for legal defense, fines, or repaying personal campaign loans. The measure increases penalties for foreign influence in state and local elections. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates ongoing state costs of a few hundred thousand dollars a year, with other costs depending on whether and how jurisdictions create programs.
The current prohibition on public financing programs does not apply to charter cities (Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 389). At least seven charter cities in California (Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and San Francisco) have enacted public campaign funding programs in the past.
A YES vote means California and local governments would be allowed to create voluntary public campaign financing programs for qualified candidates.
A NO vote means California’s current ban on using public funds to finance political campaigns would remain in place.
- Research on our position
La Defensa is proud to endorse and recommend a YES vote on Proposition 4. Wealthy donors, corporations, and major political spenders have outsized influence over who runs for office and who wins, and that includes police special interest groups and real estate interests. That influence shapes decisions on policing budgets, housing, and immigration enforcement. Public financing lowers the barrier for working-class candidates and candidates from historically underrepresented communities, who often lack access to wealthy donor networks
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Good-government and civil rights groups: California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California, California Clean Money Campaign, the ACLU, and Asian Law Caucus.
- Labor: the California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, and AFSCME.
- Progressive and advocacy organizations: California Environmental Voters, Courage California, the Dolores Huerta Foundation, Indivisible CA: StateStrong, La Defensa, Mental Health Advocacy, Social Security Works, and Consumer Watchdog.
Opponents include the California Taxpayers Association.
Other State Measures
PROP 1 - The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026
✔️ Vote Yes
- Summary
Proposition 1 authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds for affordable housing and veterans’ homeownership. Of that amount, $10 billion would fund affordable rental housing, supportive housing, youth housing, preservation of existing affordable units, down-payment assistance, farmworker and tribal housing, and related infrastructure. At least 10% of units funded through the Multifamily Housing Program must be affordable to extremely low-income households. The remaining $1.25 billion would fund the CalVet program, which helps veterans and their families buy farms, homes, and mobile homes. Veterans repay that portion through their loan payments. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the state would spend $500 million to $600 million a year for about 25 years to repay the $10 billion housing portion.
A YES vote means the state could borrow $11.25 billion to support affordable housing and veterans’ homeownership.
A NO vote means the state could not borrow money for these purposes.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Proposition 1. Stable, affordable housing is one of the most effective tools we have to keep people out of jails and prisons and to support people coming home. According to CalMatters, the bond could help fund up to 40,000 rental units and help up to 40,000 households buy homes. Nothing in the measure funds police, jails, prosecutors, probation, or surveillance.
The main argument against Proposition 1 is that it relies on borrowing. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates repayment would cost about 15% more than paying cash, after adjusting for inflation. California should build permanent, progressive funding sources for affordable housing rather than repeatedly relying on bond debt. In the meantime, Proposition 1 directs urgently needed public resources toward housing and community stability rather than criminalization.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the California Housing Consortium, and the League of California Cities. Progressive housing and community groups also support the measure, including ACCE Action, Courage California, Housing California, Public Advocates, and the California Community Land Trust Network.
Opponents include Assemblymember David Tangipa and Reform California, who cite state debt, interest costs, and concerns about subsidizing developers. No argument against the measure was submitted for the official state voter guide.
PROP 2- Save for California's Future Act
✔️ Vote Yes
- Summary
Proposition 2 is a legislative constitutional amendment that strengthens California’s Rainy Day Fund. It raises the cap on the Budget Stabilization Account from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues. Beginning in 2027-28, it requires the state to deposit 1.5% of estimated General Fund revenues into the reserve each year, plus larger deposits when capital gains revenues are unusually high. It directs part of those excess revenues toward paying down state debts, including federal unemployment insurance loans. It also allows the state to draw on reserves during a declared budget emergency.
A YES vote means California would save more in strong economic years to protect public programs during downturns, though increased savings could limit money available for urgent needs today.
A NO vote means the state’s current rules for the Rainy Day Fund, debt repayment, and budget emergencies would stay the same.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Proposition 2. When state revenues collapse, the programs our communities rely on are often the first to be cut: reentry services, mental health care, housing assistance, and the safety net. A larger reserve gives the state more capacity to protect those services during a recession instead of imposing austerity. Had the new capital gains formula been in place from 2019-20 through 2021-22, California could have deposited an additional $4.7 billion into reserves.
Our recommendation involves a real trade-off. The California Budget & Policy Center notes that Proposition 2 would better protect core public services during budget emergencies, but would modestly limit what the state can spend on current needs in good years. Given the enormous unmet needs in our communities today, we recommend YES with the understanding that savings must be paired with a sustained fight for progressive revenue, including Propositions 3 and 40.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party.
Opponents include the California Republican Party and Reform California.
PROP 3 - The California Children's Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2026
✔️ Vote Yes
- Summary
Proposition 3 makes permanent the higher income tax rates on high earners that voters approved through Proposition 30 in 2012 and extended through Proposition 55 in 2016. Those rates are set to expire in 2031. They apply to income above about $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household (2024 levels, adjusted annually for inflation). The measure creates no new tax and does not raise current rates.
Of revenue generated, 89% goes to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges. When the funds generated exceed what Proposition 98 guarantees schools, half of the leftover (up to $2 billion a year) goes to children’s and family health care through Medi-Cal. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the measure maintains $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue.
A YES vote means the income tax rates on high earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.
A NO vote means those rates would expire in 2031.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Proposition 3. It is the most durable source of progressive revenue on this ballot, preserving an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year for public education and children’s health care. The amount varies because much of it comes from income tied to the stock market. It has been substantial: Proposition 30 and 55 revenue peaked above $16 billion in 2021 and was nearly $12 billion in 2024. Letting these rates expire would force deep cuts to schools and health care, the very investments that keep young people connected to opportunity and out of the criminal legal system.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Education: the California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Association, California State PTA, and California School Nurses Organization.
- Labor: SEIU California and AFSCME California.
- Health care: the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
- Political: California DSA and the California Democratic Party.
Opponents are led by No on Prop. 3, sponsored by the California Taxpayers Association, with opposition from Reform California, conservative tax-policy advocates, and the California Republican Party. Opponents argue California’s taxes are already among the highest in the nation and that high earners may leave the state.
PROP 5 - Eliminate State Officer Recall Successor Elections Amendment
＊No Recommendation
- Summary
Proposition 5 is a legislative constitutional amendment that changes how California recalls state officers. It removes the second question from state recall ballots, so voters would decide only whether to remove an official, not who should replace them.
If a governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor, either until a new governor is elected or for the rest of the term, depending on when the recall occurs. For other state offices, the vacancy would be filled through the existing process, which could mean a later special election or an appointment. A recalled official could run again in a later special election. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the net fiscal effect is unknown, with costs or savings of millions of dollars per recall depending on the office and how often recalls occur.
A YES vote means voters would no longer choose a replacement at the same election when a state officer is recalled. The office would instead be filled under the rules for vacancies, with the lieutenant governor taking over for a recalled governor.
A NO vote means California would keep its current recall system, in which voters decide at the same election both whether to remove an officer and who should replace them.
- Research on our position
La Defensa is not taking a position on Proposition 5. Here are the main arguments on each side, so you can decide for yourself.
Supporters argue that the current system allows a replacement to take office with far less support than the official being removed. Under today’s rules, dozens of candidates can appear on the replacement question, and the winner needs only a plurality, not a majority. The measure’s author, former State Senator Josh Newman, was recalled in 2018. His replacement won with just under 34% of the vote, even though about 42% of voters had opposed the recall. Supporters say removing the replacement question would make recalls fairer and more democratic. They also say it would keep the governor’s office in the hands of an official whom voters elected statewide (the lieutenant governor), and would reduce the incentive to use recalls as a partisan shortcut to power.
Opponents argue that the recall is a tool for voters to hold officials accountable, and that the replacement question lets voters choose who governs next. Under Proposition 5, the lieutenant governor would take over, and that person usually shares the recalled governor’s party and priorities.
Critics say this could make a successful recall less meaningful and reduce voters’ direct choice.
Opponents also note that for other offices, vacancies could be filled by appointment rather than by voters.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include California Common Cause, the Sacramento Bee, the California Democratic Party, and the League of Women Voters.
Opponents include the California Republican Party, the Election Integrity Project California, Inc., and Reform California.
PROP 37 - California Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act of 2026
✔️ Vote Yes
- Summary
Proposition 37 creates a state program to help middle-income households buy newly constructed homes. It authorizes up to $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers a state-backed second mortgage covering up to 17% of the purchase price of a qualifying new home. Qualifying homes are newly built or the first sale of a converted nonresidential property, priced at or below 125% of the county-level conforming loan limit under the Federal Housing Finance Agency standards.
To qualify, borrowers must:
- have lived in California for at least one year;
- earn less than 200% of area median income;
- live in the home; and
- put at least 3% down.
Buyers do not need to be first-time homebuyers. Homeowners’ mortgage payments repay the bonds, not the state.
The measure also creates new rules for construction-defect lawsuits involving participating builders who meet higher labor standards. It gives the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) broad authority to set loan terms. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates no direct state or local costs.
A YES vote means California would create this $25 billion program offering state-backed second mortgages for newly constructed homes, along with the new rules for participating builders.
A NO vote means the program would not be created, and existing state homeownership and down-payment assistance programs would continue under current law.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Proposition 37. Homeownership has long been out of reach for working families in California, and the gap falls hardest on Black and Latino households shut out of wealth-building for generations. Proposition 37 creates a path to homeownership at no direct cost to taxpayers, encourages new housing construction, and ties its builder incentives to higher labor standards.
We recommend this measure with open eyes about its limits:
- Monthly payments: Unlike existing CalHFA assistance, these second mortgages will likely require monthly payments, and California YIMBY warns their interest rates may be higher than typical mortgage rates.
- Who it serves: The program serves households earning up to 200% of area median income, so it will do little for the low-income renters most at risk of displacement.
- Buyer protections: The construction-defect provisions give participating builders more flexibility, which could weaken buyers’ remedies when something goes wrong.
The California Budget & Policy Center has questioned whether the program will reach those facing the greatest barriers to homeownership. Voters should weigh these concerns. If the measure passes, we will push for CalHFA to set fair, transparent loan terms.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Party and industry: the California Democratic Party, the California Association of REALTORS, and the California Housing Partnership.
- Labor: the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, California Federation of Labor Unions, California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, AFSCME California, and California Conference of Carpenters.
- Elected officials and candidates: State Controller Malia Cohen, State Treasurer Fiona Ma, Xavier Becerra, Matt Mahan, Katie Porter, Tony Thurmond, Antonio Villaraigosa, Darrell Steinberg, and former Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, the measure’s proponent.
Opponents include the League of Women Voters and Reform California. League of Women Voters highlights that buyers generally would repay the Proposition 37 loan each month in addition to their first mortgage, property taxes, insurance, repairs, and other costs. Voters would not know the interest rate, loan term, or monthly payment before approving the program.
PROP 38 - California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Proposition 38 authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, which uses the body’s immune system to treat disease. The money would be split equally between two recipients: a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit research institute, selected by the California Department of Public Health, and a grant program for public and nonprofit research institutions. At least half of the research money must go to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s research.
Drugs and technologies developed with the funding must be sold in California at 20% below the national average price, and 10% of resulting revenue goes to the state to help repay the bonds. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the state would spend about $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bonds.
A YES vote means California could borrow $8.4 billion through general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research, with about half going to a single qualifying research institute and half distributed through grants.
A NO vote means California would not take on this bond debt or create this research funding structure. The state could continue supporting biomedical research through existing programs.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Proposition 38. Medical research matters, but this measure is structured in a way that raises serious concerns about who benefits. The measure does not name the institute that would receive $4.2 billion. However, a CalMatters investigation found that its selection criteria very likely exclude every institute in California except one: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. That institute’s co-founder, billionaire Gary K. Michelson, is one of the measure’s two chief financial backers. The Yes campaign disputes this reading.
Still, a measure that could direct billions in public debt to a single institute tied to its own funder is not a responsible use of state borrowing. California should fund medical research through independent scientific review and open competition across institutions. Public borrowing should go first to housing, health care, and the needs of communities most harmed by disinvestment.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include the California Democratic Party, Michael J. Fox Foundation, Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, the Kidney Cancer Association, and the American Nurses Association of California. The measure’s chief financial backers include Gary K. Michelson, co-founder of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy.
Opponents are led by California Health Policy Strategies and include the League of Women Voters of California and Robert M. Kaplan, a Stanford University School of Medicine researcher and former associate director of the National Institutes of Health.
PROP 39 - The California Voter ID Initiative
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Under current law, people registering to vote must state under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and provide information to verify their identity. Proposition 39 would amend the California Constitution to further require that:
- voters present government-issued identification at the polls, or provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID number when voting by mail;
- the state provide voter identification cards on request; and
- election officials verify voters’ citizenship using government data, and report each year the percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.
Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates one-time state and local costs in the tens of millions of dollars. It also estimates ongoing costs ranging from tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
A YES vote means California would require voters to provide additional identification: in-person voters would generally have to show government-issued ID, and mail voters would have to provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID number.
A NO vote means California’s current voter identification requirements would remain in place, including verifying a voter’s identity primarily through their signature.
Drugs and technologies developed with the funding must be sold in California at 20% below the national average price, and 10% of resulting revenue goes to the state to help repay the bonds. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the state would spend about $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bonds.
A YES vote means California could borrow $8.4 billion through general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research, with about half going to a single qualifying research institute and half distributed through grants.
A NO vote means California would not take on this bond debt or create this research funding structure. The state could continue supporting biomedical research through existing programs.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Proposition 39. Requiring voter ID would roll back decades of organizing to expand voting access and would make it harder for eligible Black, Brown, and low-income Californians to vote. The burden falls hardest on people who struggle to obtain or keep government-issued ID: formerly incarcerated people rebuilding their lives, unhoused residents, older voters, and students. The measure’s citizenship verification requirements also raise serious concerns about how voter data could be used for immigration enforcement.
Supporters say the measure would increase trust in elections, but it addresses a kind of voter fraud that is not a significant problem in California. The California Budget & Policy Center calls the measure unnecessary, harmful, and costly.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include Reform California and Californians for Voter ID. Elected backers include Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (the measure’s principal sponsor), Republican State Senator Tony Strickland, and Republican U.S. Representative Ken Calvert. Major financial supporters include Illinois billionaire Richard Uihlein (the measure’s top funder), Nicole Shanahan, Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, and Douglas Leone.
Opponents include:
- Voting rights and civil rights groups: the League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action, California Common Cause, and California Donor Table.
- Elected officials: Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, and U.S. Senator Alex Padilla.
- Labor: the California Nurses Association and the California School Employees Association.
PROP 40 - 2026 Billionaire Tax Act
✔️ Vote Yes
- Summary
Proposition 40 imposes a one-time tax of up to 5% on the net worth of taxpayers and trusts with assets above $1 billion who were California residents on January 1, 2026. The full 5% rate applies at $1.1 billion or more, and phases in between $1 billion and $1.1 billion. Covered assets include businesses, stocks, art, collectibles, and intellectual property. Real estate and some pensions and retirement accounts are generally excluded. The tax is due in 2027 and can be paid over five years.
Ninety percent of revenue goes to health care, and the remainder to food assistance or education-related programs. The revenue cannot replace existing funding for those purposes and is exempt from the state spending limit. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the tax would raise tens of billions of dollars over several years, with a possible ongoing loss of less than $1 billion a year in income tax revenue.
Important: If Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, the billionaire tax would not take effect, even if a majority of voters approve it.
A YES vote means you support creating this one-time billionaire wealth tax, which would generate tens of billions of dollars, mostly for health care.
A NO vote means you oppose creating the new wealth tax, and the state would not collect this revenue.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a YES vote on Proposition 40. Federal cuts to Medicaid under H.R. 1 are expected to leave many more Californians uninsured, putting Medi-Cal (including coverage for immigrant Californians) and the health care safety net at risk. Proposition 40 asks roughly 200 of California’s wealthiest residents to help protect that care. For our communities, access to health care, including mental health and substance use treatment, is one of the strongest alternatives to incarceration.
Voters need to know one critical thing: Proposition 40 can win and still fail. Propositions 41 and 42 were placed on the ballot by a committee co-founded by billionaires Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, specifically to block the billionaire tax. If either one receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, the billionaire tax is voided entirely, even if a majority of voters approve it. A September 2026 PPIC poll found Proposition 40 at 52% support, while Proposition 42 was polling even higher, at 54%. To protect this measure, vote YES on 40 and NO on 41 and 42.
Opponents argue the tax could drive billionaires out of the state and reduce long-term income tax revenue, and that a one-time tax isn’t a sustainable solution to California’s health care funding needs. These concerns deserve a real answer: California needs permanent, progressive revenue. But Proposition 40 is the largest opportunity on this ballot to make the wealthiest Californians pay their share, at a moment when our communities’ health care is under direct attack.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (the measure’s sponsor), AFSCME California and Teamsters California, the California Democratic Party, the Democratic Socialists of America, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, and other health care and progressive organizations.
Opponents include:
- Elected officials: Governor Gavin Newsom and former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.
- Organizations: the California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Medical Association, business interests, and some labor and health care organizations.
Building a Better California: the committee behind Propositions 41 and 42, which has spent more than $187 million opposing Proposition 40.
PROP 41 - Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Proposition 41 would require independent audits of programs funded by new statewide special taxes. The State Auditor would review programs that would receive money from a special tax proposed by voter initiative before voters decide on it. The State Auditor would also conduct recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. The measure would also bar any new state tax enacted after that date from excluding its revenue from the state’s voter-approved spending limit, including taxes on the same ballot. Legislative Analyst’s Office says the net fiscal effect is unknown.
Important: If Proposition 41 receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, Proposition 40 could be prevented from taking effect.
A YES vote means you support requiring the State Auditor to review programs funded by proposed and new special taxes. It also means restricting new special tax revenue, including revenue from other measures on this ballot, from being excluded from the state spending limit.
A NO vote means current rules would remain in place: the State Auditor would not have these additional audit requirements, and existing rules on the state spending limit would not change.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Proposition 41. Proposition 41 is presented as a good-government transparency measure, but it was designed to kill Proposition 40, the billionaire tax. Proposition 40 exempts its revenue from the state spending limit, and Proposition 41 includes a “poison pill”: if it receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, the billionaire tax is voided entirely, even if a majority of voters approve it.
Proposition 41 is funded by Building a Better California, a committee co-founded by billionaires Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt, which has spent $131 million on Propositions 41 and 42 combined. Beyond this election, Proposition 41 would also make it harder to fund health care, housing, and community services through new progressive revenue in the future. Vote NO on 41 to protect Proposition 40.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include Building a Better California (co-founded by Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt), the California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA), the California Taxpayers Association (CalTax), the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce, small business groups, good-government advocates, accountants, and auditing experts.
Opponents include U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, and the California Democratic Party, who argue that Proposition 41 is designed to undermine Proposition 40.
PROP 42 - The Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Proposition 42 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit any new state tax on the ownership or control of personal property. That includes retirement accounts, investment accounts, financial assets, business interests, trusts, art, and intellectual property. It would also prohibit certain taxes that apply retroactively based on a taxpayer’s conduct, activities, or status before the tax took effect. It applies to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, including taxes on the same ballot. Legislative Analyst’s Office says the measure could result in lower state tax revenues in the future.
Important: If Proposition 42 receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, Proposition 40 would not take effect.
A YES vote means you support adding these constitutional restrictions, which would block new state taxes on the ownership of financial assets and other personal property and prevent certain taxes from applying retroactively.
A NO vote means you oppose adding these restrictions, leaving the state able to consider such taxes in the future.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Proposition 42. Supporters present it as protecting ordinary Californians’ retirement savings, but its real target is Proposition 40, the billionaire tax. Like Proposition 41, it includes a poison pill: if Proposition 42 receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, the billionaire tax is voided entirely. That risk is real. A September 2026 PPIC poll found Proposition 42 at 54% support, ahead of Proposition 40’s 52%.
Billionaire wealth is held almost entirely in stocks, businesses, and investments, exactly the assets Proposition 42 would put permanently off-limits. It would lock a permanent ceiling on wealth taxation into the constitution, limiting California’s ability to ask the wealthiest to contribute for years to come. Vote NO on 42 to protect Proposition 40.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include:
- Building a Better California: co-founded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
- Anti-tax groups: Reform California.
- Labor and law enforcement: the California Professional Firefighters, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, and the Peace Officers Research Association of California.
- Others: groups representing seniors, veterans, workers, and taxpayers.
Opponents are led by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and supported by the California Democratic Party. They argue the measure is primarily intended to prevent Proposition 40 from taking effect.
PROP 43 - Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Proposition 43 is a legislative constitutional amendment that would make it harder for voters to approve local special taxes they propose through the citizen initiative process. Beginning January 1, 2027, it would raise the vote required to pass those measures from a simple majority (more than 50%) to two-thirds. It applies only to future measures. Legislative Analyst’s Office says local tax revenues may grow more slowly in the future because some taxes would become harder to pass. Proposition 43 itself needs only a simple majority to pass.
A YES vote means voter-proposed local special taxes would need at least two-thirds of the vote to pass.
A NO vote means the current rule would stay in place, and voter-proposed local special taxes could pass with more than 50% of the vote.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Proposition 43. Community-led ballot measures have been one of the most powerful tools for winning resources our communities need. Measure ULA, the “mansion tax” that funds affordable housing and tenant protections in Los Angeles, is a local example of the kind of citizen-led revenue this measure would make much harder to pass in the future. Under Proposition 43, a minority of voters could block local measures supported by a clear majority. Recent local measures that funded services with majority support would have failed under a two-thirds rule, including Alameda County’s 2025 Measure B, Sonoma County’s 2024 Measure H, and Santa Clara County’s June 2026 Measure D.
Proposition 43 is the product of a political deal. State leaders agreed to place this narrower measure before voters to keep a far more sweeping anti-tax initiative off the ballot, one that would also have threatened transfer taxes like ULA. Even the measure’s author, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, opposes Proposition 43 and has described the deal as the less harmful option.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Reform California.
Opponents include:
- Labor: the California Professional Firefighters, the California Federation of Teachers, the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California, and SEIU Local 1000.
- Party: the California Democratic Party.
- Advocates: transit, housing, and local services advocates such as Seamless Bay Area.
The measure’s author: Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, who has described the political deal that produced it as the less harmful option.
PROP 44 - The Clinic Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Proposition 44 would require nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers, the community clinics that provide primary care in medically underserved areas, to spend at least 90% of their revenue on “program services” that advance their charitable purpose, such as patient care, rather than management and overhead. The California Department of Public Health could waive the requirement in exceptional circumstances, and the Attorney General could publish guidance on which expenses qualify.
Clinics that fall short would pay penalties, which could be refunded if they come into compliance within five years. The measure also authorizes criminal charges for false reporting. Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates state enforcement costs of up to the low tens of millions of dollars a year, much of it covered by fees and penalties on the clinics.
A YES vote means community clinics would be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on program services, with penalties for noncompliance.
A NO vote means current rules would remain in place, and community clinics would not be subject to the new spending requirement.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Proposition 44. Community clinics are the medical home for many of the people La Defensa serves: undocumented immigrants, formerly incarcerated people, unhoused residents, and families without insurance. Much of what makes these clinics work is not direct medical care but the support around it: case management, interpretation, outreach, and help navigating benefits. A rigid 90% rule could force clinics to cut exactly those services. The Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County and the California Primary Care Association warn that the measure could strain clinic finances and harm the safety net for children, seniors, and patients with limited English proficiency, at a moment when federal Medicaid cuts under H.R. 1 are already putting pressure on clinics.
Proposition 44 is sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which argues clinics should spend more on patient care and less on executive pay and overhead, and says the measure is not meant to cut clinic funding or force closures. Accountability for public health dollars matters. But opponents have raised serious concerns about the campaign itself. The California Primary Care Association has filed a federal lawsuit alleging the union offered to drop the measure if the association reversed its opposition to Proposition 40. Those allegations are unproven, but safety-net clinics should not become a bargaining chip.
- Key Endorsements
Opponents include:
- Clinic associations: the California Primary Care Association and the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County.
- Health care organizations: the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the California Hospital Association.
Party: the California Democratic Party.
PROP 45 - Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative (2026)
🚫 Vote No
- Summary
Proposition 45 would overhaul the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the state law requiring that harm to air, water, and communities be disclosed and mitigated before projects are approved. For most housing, transportation, water, health, and clean energy projects, the measure would:
- set deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions, including a 365-day limit on reviews;
- allow expedited review of a project’s environmental impacts, limiting agencies’ current obligation to consider a range of feasible alternatives that would reduce harm; and
- limit court review of project approvals, by setting deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits (including requiring courts to rule within 270 days) and limiting the evidence courts may consider and the relief they can order.
Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates state and local implementation costs in the tens of millions of dollars a year for the first several years, with likely long-term net savings from reduced administrative and legal work.
A YES vote means CEQA would be changed to speed up environmental review and limit legal challenges for most housing, transportation, water, health, and clean energy projects.
A NO vote means current environmental review requirements and court procedures under CEQA would remain in place.
- Research on our position
La Defensa recommends a NO vote on Proposition 45. CEQA is one of the few tools available to frontline communities, often low-income communities of color already living beside freeways, refineries, and industrial sites, to demand that pollution be disclosed and reduced before a project moves forward. Proposition 45 would let developers fast-track projects with far less accountability and would restrict what judges can consider when communities challenge them. Critics warn it could speed approval of data centers, freeway expansions, and other polluting projects.
The measure was written by the California Chamber of Commerce. According to the official argument against it, the measure is financed by gas and electric utilities and corporate PACs. Opponents argue that weakening environmental review strips agencies of the tools they need to protect communities and increases costly litigation. They also argue it shifts the long-term costs of poor planning onto taxpayers and the communities that live with the consequences.
- Key Endorsements
Supporters include the California Hospital Association, building industry associations, and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce.
Opponents include:
- Environmental justice groups: CEJA Action, Earthjustice, LAANE, and Communities for a Better Environment.
- Environmental and civic groups: the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, the Planning and Conservation League, and Third Act.
Health advocates: the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.