Prop 1 was put on the ballot by the Legislature to allow the State to borrow $11.25 billion for housing projects. Beneficiaries include rental and supportive housing, preservation of affordable housing and down payment assistance, plus $1.25 billion (11% of the total amount) for CalVet home loan programs.  Fiscal impact is estimated to be $500-$600 million per year in state costs for about 25 years.

The CA Democratic Party is in support and the CA Republican Party is neutral on this measure.

Official Summary Page for Prop 1

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recommends a No position: “Bonds are borrowed money. Like all general obligation bonds, the actual cost to taxpayers will be roughly double the advertised amount due to interest that must be paid to investors. Bonds are the most expensive way to pay for anything, and when used to pay for programs instead of capital projects, it’s a much greater burden on taxpayers than just paying for these programs from the budget.”

Prop 2 was put on the ballot by the Legislature to raise the cap on the state’s Budget Stabilization Account from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenue. It also changes deposits and debt paydown, and exempts reserve deposits from the state’s constitutional spending limit. This will cause the state budget reserves to be higher, but may just be a way to get around the Gann limit, passed by voters in 1979.

The CA Democratic Party is in support and the CA Republican Party is opposed to this measure.

Official Summary Page for Prop 2

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recommends a No position: “… while Prop. 2 addresses the treatment of appropriations into and out of reserve funds in a way that makes sense from the perspective of addressing revenue volatility, it doesn’t address the weakening of the Gann Limit by Propositions 98 (1988) and 111 (1990), enabling reckless overspending that has led to structural deficits and self-inflicted budget “emergencies.”

Prop 3 was put on the ballot by the Legislature to make permanent the higher income tax rates on earnings above $371,000 (single) that voters approved and extended in 2016. Current rates expire in 2031. Revenue goes 89% to K-12 and 11% to community colleges.

The CA Democratic Party is in support and the CA Republican Party is opposed to this measure.

Official Summary Page for Prop 3

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recommends a No position: “These “temporary” income tax rate hikes should not be a backdoor method for permanent tax increases.”

No on Prop 3 website: https://votenoprop3.com/

Prop 4 was put on the ballot by the Legislature to repeal California’s 1988 ban on using public money for candidate campaigns. State and local governments could set up voluntary public-financing programs, but could not use funds earmarked for education, transportation or public safety. The measure would create potentially significant and unpredictable local government costs for any jurisdiction that chooses to adopt a system of taxpayer-funded campaigns. Proposition 4 provides no additional information as to how a public financing program should be organized and administered; therefore, local costs would vary widely depending on factors such as program design and staffing capacity. Additionally, the measure does not prohibit future state appropriations for the purpose of public financing, meaning a future Legislature could decide to put state tax dollars toward these programs.

The CA Democratic Party is in support and the CA Republican Party is opposed to this measure.

Official Summary Page for Prop 4

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Taxpayers Association recommend a No position: “Eliminating this safeguard would pave the way for politicians to spend our tax dollars on campaign junk mail, including negative mailers, endless television ads, and other political communications. Californians’ tax dollars should be used to fund essential public services – not political campaigns.”

No on Prop 4 website: https://caltax.org/prop4/

Prop 5 was put on the ballot by the Legislature to remove the second question on a recall ballot that allows voters to select a replacement. If a statewide officer is recalled, the office stays vacant until filled by special election or appointment, depending on the office.

The CA Democratic Party is in support and the CA Republican Party is opposed to this measure.

Official Summary Page for Prop 5

Ballot Argument to Proposition 5:  Degrades California’s century-old recall process by limiting voters’ right to select a replacement for recalled officials. Instead, when statewide elected officials are recalled, other politicians would choose a replacement. For lower offices, another costly, taxpayer-funded election would come months later, leaving the office vacant and the people unrepresented.

Prop 37 authorizes up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to give eligible buyers a fixed-rate second mortgage covering up to 17% of the price of a qualifying newly built home (under roughly $1.5 million). Buyers must live in the home, meet income limits and put at least 3% down. Bonds are repaid from mortgage payments.

The CA Democratic Party is in support and the CA Republican Party is neutral on this measure.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has not taken a position on Prop 37, but expresses some concerns. “Although there is no direct cost to taxpayers, a market downturn could cause mass foreclosures if stretched borrowers are unable to make their payments or sell the home for what they owe. Investors bear the financial risks, but the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) must manage this massive pool of funds to protect the bondholders and pay them the interest they are owed.” 

The California Association of Realtors is in support of this measure.

Official Summary Page for Prop 37

Prop 38 lets the state borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research (treatments that use the body’s immune system). Half goes to one UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute; half is distributed as competitive grants. 

The CA Democratic Party and the CA Republican Party support this measure.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes this measure. “There is no reason that this cost should be borne by California taxpayers. Viable research can be funded by pharmaceutical companies, foundations and the federal government. An analysis by CalMatters reveals that the ballot language criteria were tailored in a way that very likely excludes all but one institute in the entire state: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose prominent donor and co-founder is the chief backer of the proposition. Prop. 38 appears to be a clear case of self-dealing at the expense of taxpayers.”

Official Summary Page for Prop 38

Prop 39 requires government-issued photo ID to vote in person and the last four digits of an ID number on the mail-ballot envelope. Counties must offer a free voter ID card and report annually how many voters have had their citizenship verified..

The CA Democratic Party opposes this measure and the CA Republican Party is in support of Prop 39.

Reform California has taken the lead on Prop 39 to increase trust and confidence in our elections. “Under Prop 39, voters would provide a government-issued ID for in-person voting or provide last four digits of a government ID for voting by mail.  If they don’t have a government-issued ID, Prop 39 requires one to be provided free of charge. Prop 39 also requires election officials to use existing government databases (not cumbersome documents from voters) to verify that only eligible individuals are registered to vote and receive ballots.”

Official Summary Page for Prop 39

Yes on Prop 39 website: https://www.voteridca.org/

Prop 40 creates a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California residents with more than $1 billion in covered assets (businesses, securities, art, intellectual property; not real estate), payable over five years. About 90% of revenue goes to health care, chiefly Medi-Cal. Exempts the revenue from the state spending limit and school-funding formula.

The CA Democratic Party supports this measure and the CA Republican Party is in opposition.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association is opposed to Prop 40. “..the measure includes language that allows the Legislature to rewrite the law later, potentially changing the thresholds, the assets that are covered, the percentage to be taken, and the number of times the tax would be levied. This is an entirely new type of tax, and we don’t know where it will lead.”

One thing we do know is there is no such thing as a one-time or temporary tax in this Democrat-controlled Legislature!

Official Summary Page for Prop 40

Website for No on Prop 40: https://votenoon40.org/

Prop 41 voids any state tax enacted after Jan 1, 2026 whose revenue is exempted from the voter-approved spending limit, and requires the State Auditor to review programs funded by a proposed special tax before it reaches the ballot, with recurring audits after.

The CA Democratic Party opposes this measure and the CA Republican Party is in support.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association is supportive of Prop 41. “It’s a good idea to find out where the existing funds are going before voters are asked to approve higher taxes for the same programs.”

Official Summary Page for Prop 41

Website for Yes on Prop 41: https://www.yesonprop41.org/

Prop 42 bars the state from imposing any new tax on the ownership of personal property, including financial assets, retirement accounts and savings, and bars taxes that apply retroactively. Nullifies conflicting taxes enacted after Jan 1, 2026, which would include Prop 40.

The CA Democratic Party opposes this measure and the CA Republican Party is in support.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association is supportive of Prop 42. “This will protect Californians, especially homeowners, from the risk of a “wealth tax” on the value of homes or any other accumulated savings and investments.”

Official Summary Page for Prop 42

Website for Yes on Prop 42: https://yesonprop42.org/

Prop 43 restores the Prop 13 rule that any local special tax needs two-thirds voter approval, closing a 2017 court opening that let
citizen-initiated local special taxes pass with a simple majority. Takes effect Jan 1, 2027.

The CA Democratic Party opposes this measure and the CA Republican Party is in support.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association is supportive of Prop 43. “Prop. 43 closes the court-created “Upland” loophole that has allowed special interest groups to write their own tax increases, direct the money to themselves, collect signatures to place them on the ballot and then evade the two-thirds vote requirement. Because of this loophole, Californians are paying billions of dollars in taxes that they should not have had to pay.”

Official Summary Page for Prop 43

Website for Yes on Prop 43: https://yeson43.com/

Prop 44 requires nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers to spend at least 90% of revenue on program services, capping overhead at 10%, with penalties enforced by the Attorney General..

The CA Democratic Party opposes this measure and the CA Republican Party is in opposition.

SEIU sponsored this measure as they seek to expand their control over private clinics.  The opposition is widespread, including health provider associations and community groups.

Official Summary Page for Prop 44

Website for No on Prop 44: https://noprop44.com/

Prop 45 speeds up California Environmental Quality Act review for “essential projects” (housing, water, transportation, clean energy, health care, public safety, broadband, schools): a 365-day limit on review, a 270-day deadline for court challenges, and narrower remedies so lawsuits are less likely to stop a project.

The CA Democratic Party opposes this measure and the CA Republican Party is in support.

Official Summary Page for Prop 45

Website for Yes on Prop 45: https://yesonprop45.com/