California ballot

Proposition 1 ("Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute.") is a legislative statute on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. The Legislature placed it on the ballot (SB 417 (Chapter 16, Statutes of 2026)). Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing. A NO vote means: The state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.

A yes vote: The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.

A no vote: The state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.

Proposition 2 ("Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.") is a legislative constitutional amendment on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. The Legislature placed it on the ballot (ACA 20 (Chapter 130, Statutes of 2026)). Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Increases California's Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. As a result, state budget reserves would be higher. The state also would be required to make extra debt payments for longer. A NO vote means: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.

A yes vote: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. As a result, state budget reserves would be higher. The state also would be required to make extra debt payments for longer.

A no vote: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.

Proposition 3 ("Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") is an initiative constitutional amendment on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031. A NO vote means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.

A yes vote: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.

A no vote: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.

Proposition 4 ("Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.") is a legislative statute on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. The Legislature placed it on the ballot (SB 42 (Chapter 245, Statutes of 2025)). Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them. A NO vote means: State and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.

A yes vote: State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be used, how the public funds could be used, and who could receive them.

A no vote: State and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.

Proposition 5 ("Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.") is a legislative constitutional amendment on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. The Legislature placed it on the ballot (SCA 1 (Chapter 204, Statutes of 2024)). Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy. Instead, vacancies typically would be filled through special elections or appointments, depending on the office and timing. A NO vote means: Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.

A yes vote: Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy. Instead, vacancies typically would be filled through special elections or appointments, depending on the office and timing.

A no vote: Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.

Proposition 37 ("Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute.") is an initiative statute on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3% down. Bonds repaid by mortgage payments, not State. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: The state would create a new homebuying assistance program. The state could sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund the program. Bonds would be paid back by homeowners’ payments on their home loans. A NO vote means: The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.

A yes vote: The state would create a new homebuying assistance program. The state could sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund the program. Bonds would be paid back by homeowners’ payments on their home loans.

A no vote: The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.

Proposition 38 ("Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.") is an initiative statute on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities. A NO vote means: The state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.

A yes vote: The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.

A no vote: The state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.

Proposition 39 ("Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") is an initiative constitutional amendment on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote. A NO vote means: A voter’s identity would continue to be established with the voter’s signature.

A yes vote: Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote.

A no vote: A voter’s identity would continue to be established with the voter’s signature.

Proposition 40 ("Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.") is an initiative constitutional amendment and statute on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth. A NO vote means: The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

A yes vote: The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

A no vote: The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.

Proposition 41 ("Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") is an initiative constitutional amendment on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: When special taxes are proposed by voter initiatives, the California State Auditor would review programs funded by the tax before the initiative appears on the ballot. The California State Auditor also would regularly review programs funded by special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature. In addition, the state might not be able to exclude any new special tax spending from its spending limit. A NO vote means: The California State Auditor’s responsibility to review government programs would not change. The state spending limit requirements would not change.

A yes vote: When special taxes are proposed by voter initiatives, the California State Auditor would review programs funded by the tax before the initiative appears on the ballot. The California State Auditor also would regularly review programs funded by special taxes approved by voters or the Legislature. In addition, the state might not be able to exclude any new special tax spending from its spending limit.

A no vote: The California State Auditor’s responsibility to review government programs would not change. The state spending limit requirements would not change.

Proposition 42 ("Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.") is an initiative constitutional amendment on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property. A NO vote means: The state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

A yes vote: The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

A no vote: The state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.

Proposition 43 ("Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.") is a legislative constitutional amendment on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. The Legislature placed it on the ballot (ACA 22 (Chapter 132, Statutes of 2026)). Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters. A NO vote means: Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.

A yes vote: Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.

A no vote: Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.

Proposition 44 ("Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% Of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.") is an initiative statute on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: Certain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue each year on providing health care services. A NO vote means: The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.

A yes vote: Certain private nonprofit health care clinics would have to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue each year on providing health care services.

A no vote: The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.

Proposition 45 ("Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.") is an initiative statute on California's Nov 3, 2026 statewide ballot. It was placed on the ballot by petition signatures. Per the official Voter Information Guide summary: Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Per the Legislative Analyst, a YES vote means: Certain public and private projects would be eligible for new project review and court challenge procedures. For example, new procedures would tighten time limits for environmental review and reduce the scope of what courts can consider when reviewing legal challenges. A NO vote means: Public and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures.

A yes vote: Certain public and private projects would be eligible for new project review and court challenge procedures. For example, new procedures would tighten time limits for environmental review and reduce the scope of what courts can consider when reviewing legal challenges.

A no vote: Public and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures.

The Legislature passed SB 895 (Wiener), the California Science and Health Research Bond Act (Chapter 1040, Statutes of 2026), which requires that the bond be submitted to voters at the March 7, 2028 statewide primary election. Per the Legislative Counsel's Digest, if approved by voters it would authorize $7,500,000,000 in state general obligation bonds to finance grants and loans for research and to operate and maintain facilities, administered through a new California Foundation for Science and Health Research. A proposition number, official ballot label, and Legislative Analyst yes/no descriptions have not yet been issued.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission approved a $27,500 fine against San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan at its September 17, 2026 hearing over 38 behested-payment disclosures -- including roughly $1.9 million to his own political advocacy nonprofit, Back to Basics California, and $400,000 to the Cinequest film festival -- that missed the state's 30-day disclosure deadline between 2024 and 2026. Mahan said he self-reported the lapse upon discovering it and has since implemented stronger internal compliance processes; his former chief of staff, Jim Reed, who left in December to run Back to Basics California, said 'it's my fault we didn't disclose the same information to the state.'

The Legislature adopted Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 (Jackson), Resolution Chapter 223 of 2026, which requires that it appear on the ballot at the November 7, 2028 statewide general election. Per the Legislative Counsel's Digest, the Constitution (as amended by Proposition 209 in 1996) prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting; ACA 7, titled the Closing the Student Opportunity and Achievement Gap Act, would instead limit that prohibition to public employment, public higher education admissions and enrollment, and public contracting. A proposition number, ballot label, and Legislative Analyst yes/no descriptions have not yet been issued.