Nov 3, 2026 general election · Governor, U.S. House and 12 other statewide races
Election results for Nov 3, 2026: official state sources →
General election: Tuesday, Nov 3, 2026. Dates below are for that election, from official state election sources; rules can change, so confirm with the linked source.
James Gallagher (R) vs. Mike McGuire (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJared Huffman (D) vs. Robin Littau (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRobb Tucker (R) vs. Ami Bera (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMike Thompson (D) vs. Eric Jones (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareTom McClintock (R) vs. Michael Masuda (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKevin Kiley (N) vs. Richard Pan (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDoris Matsui (D) vs. Mai Vang (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJohn Garamendi (D) vs. Rudy Recile (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJosh Harder (D) vs. John McBride (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMark DeSaulnier (D) vs. Jeff Frese (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareConnie Chan (D) vs. Scott Wiener (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareLateefah Simon (D) vs. Jamie Joyce (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAdam Gray (D) vs. Kevin Lincoln (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAisha Wahab (D) vs. Melissa Hernandez (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKevin Mullin (D) vs. Charles Hoelter (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSam Liccardo (D) vs. Peter Sundin Soulé (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRo Khanna (D) vs. Ritesh Tandon (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareZoe Lofgren (D) vs. Shane Lewis (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJimmy Panetta (D) vs. Peter Coe Verbica (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareVince Fong (R) vs. Sandra Van Scotter (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJim Costa (D) vs. Kyle Kirkland (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDavid G. Valadao (R) vs. Randy Villegas (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJay Obernolte (R) vs. Tessa Lynn Hodge (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSalud Carbajal (D) vs. Bob Smith (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRaul Ruiz (D) vs. Joe Males (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSam Gallucci (R) vs. Jacqui Irwin (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareGeorge Whitesides (D) vs. Jason Gibbs (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJudy Chu (D) vs. April A. Verlato (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareLuz Maria Rivas (D) vs. Angélica María Dueñas (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareLaura Friedman (D) vs. Scott Alan Meyers (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareGil Cisneros (D) vs. Eric Ching (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareBrad Sherman (D) vs. Larry Thompson (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
ComparePete Aguilar (D) vs. Stephanie M. Vargas (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJimmy Gomez (D) vs. Angela Gonzales-Torres (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareNorma J. Torres (D) vs. Mike Cargile (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareTed W. Lieu (D) vs. Houston Brignano (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSydney Kamlager-Dove (D) vs. Samantha Mota (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
ComparePedro Antonio Casas (R) vs. Hilda Solis (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMark Takano (D) vs. Steve Manos (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareYoung Kim (R) vs. Ken Calvert (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMitch Clemmons (R) vs. Linda Sánchez (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRobert Garcia (D) vs. Brian Burley (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMaxine Waters (D) vs. Cristian Morales (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareNanette Diaz Barragan (D) vs. Genevieve Angel (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDerek Tran (D) vs. Chuong V. Vo (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareLou Correa (D) vs. David Pan (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDave Min (D) vs. Jenny Rae Le Roux (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJim Desmond (R) vs. Marni von Wilpert (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMike Levin (D) vs. Armen Kurdian (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareScott Peters (D) vs. Steve Cohen (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSara Jacobs (D) vs. Ricardo Cabrera (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJuan Vargas (D) vs. Jeff Belle (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSteve Hilton (R) vs. Xavier Becerra (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareGloria Romero (R) vs. Fiona Ma (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRob Bonta (D) vs. Michael E. Gates (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareShirley N. Weber (D) vs. Donald P. (Don) Wagner (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJennifer Hawks (R) vs. Eleni Kounalakis (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMalia M. Cohen (D) vs. Herb W. Morgan (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareBen Allen (D) vs. Jane Kim (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareRichard Barrera (NP) vs. Sonja Shaw (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKelli M. Evans (NP) vs. Joshua P. Groban (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareShannon Grove (R) vs. Nelson Esparza (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareSally J. Lieber (D) vs. John Pimentel (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMike Gipson (D) vs. Samuel P. Sukaton (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareDenis Bilodeau (R) vs. Tom Umberg (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAll 100 California legislative races on the Nov 3 ballot, from the official candidate list.
See the racesEvery candidate we list for California's statewide races, with background, positions and votes.
Local and district races: every California county.
14 certified statewide ballot measures on the November 3, 2026 California general election ballot. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure means: The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including State Asm. Buffy Wicks (D-14), who coauthored the bill, argue: “We all know the stats in California — two-thirds of lower-income renters are rent-burdened, 170,000 people are unsheltered, and we are 1.2 million units short of the affordable housing we need.” Opponents say: Opponents, including State Asm. David Tangipa (R-8), argue: “We have a record budget and record revenue. Why do we need to borrow money?” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), argue: “Putting money aside to protect ourselves from future uncertainties isn’t just good government; it’s common sense. California is strong and resilient, but we’re not immune to economic headwinds.” Opponents say: Opponents, including State Asm. Joe Patterson (R-5), argue: “We don’t have a rainy day fund in California. All this does is create a bigger slush fund for money to be used the following years instead of returning the money to the taxpayer.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): The initiative would amend the California Constitution to make permanent the state’s top marginal tax rates on higher incomes, which are set to expire in 2031. The initiative would continue the higher marginal income tax rates on the following brackets: A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, argue: “People have shown us time and time again that they know that investing in our students, our communities, and educators is one of the best investments we can make as a state. Frankly, they also are blown away by income inequality we have in the state....” Opponents say: Opponents, including Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, argue: “Extending these income tax rates, it’s hitting that same pressure points and it’s causing the same incentives to leave. And if you look at the latest IRS migration data, you can see it.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: State and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including League of Women Voters of California Co-President Lorrel Plimier, California Nurses Association President Catherine Kennedy, and State Sen. Tom Umberg (D-34), argue in the Official Voter Guide: “California is the ONLY state that bans public funding of campaigns—communities in all other 49 states have this right. Special interests want to keep the ban to protect their power. Prop. 4 removes it.” Opponents say: Opponents, including former Fair Political Practices Commission Chair Dan Schnur, CalTax President Robert Gutierrez, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal, argue in the Official Voter Guide: “Prop. 4 allows politicians to use YOUR taxpayer money to fund their negative campaigns. Prop. 4 has NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money and NO LIMIT on how much taxpayer money they can get.” Arguments: California Secretary of State — Official Voter Information Guide. Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: Voters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including League of Women Voters of California Co-President Lorrel Plimier and California Common Cause Executive Director Darius L. Kemp, argue in the Official Voter Guide: “Proposition 5 restores the recall to its original purpose: removing corrupt officials. It closes the loophole that allows replacements to win with a small fraction of the vote, reducing the politics and costs of future recalls.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones (R-40) and Assemblymember Joe Patterson (R-5), argue in the Official Voter Guide: “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.” Arguments: California Secretary of State — Official Voter Information Guide. Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: The state would create a new homebuying assistance program. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including Former California Senate Majority Leader and Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg (D), sponsor of the initiative, argue: “I wanted to create something that would support the building of, and therefore supply, more middle-class housing. We need to increase supply.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Reform California, argue: “Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): Proposition 38 would issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. The initiative would require at least $4.2 billion in bond revenue to be used for research related to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure means: The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including YES on the California Immunology Research & Cures Initiative campaign, argue: “California has an opportunity to accelerate lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Immunotherapies work differently than traditional treatments.” Opponents say: Opponents argue: Dr. Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at the Clinical Excellence Research Center at the Stanford School of Medicine and the former associate director of the National Institutes of Health: "As written, Proposition 38 is deceptive. Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure means: Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: A voter’s identity would continue to be established with the voter’s signature. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including State Rep. Carl DeMaio (R-75), argue: “Politicians and the media will keep denying the fact that California has real problems with election integrity, but the message from the public is loud and clear in support of requiring Voter ID as the best way to restore public trust and confidence in our elections.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, argue: “This voter ID measure is not about protecting voters; it is about importing the current federal administration’s election lies and intimidation tactics into California.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): The initiative would enact a one-time tax of 5% on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion, including shares of capital stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, and any legal or equitable interest. The tax would be retroactive and apply to taxpayers residing in the state as of January 1, 2026. The tax would be due with an individual's 2027 tax filings. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure means: The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-17), argue: “It’s a matter of values. We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have Medicaid.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Jack Guidi from Americans for Tax Reform, argue: “The tax is retroactive and would apply to all eligible residents beginning January 1st, 2026. However, the earliest this tax could go into effect would be November 2026.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure 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. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: The California State Auditor’s responsibility to review government programs would not change. The state spending limit requirements would not change. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including CalCPA, the statewide association representing California's CPA profession, argue: “CalCPA supports Proposition 41 because independent audits provide voters with objective, credible information to inform decisions about public spending.” Opponents say: Opponents argue: Erica Olivo Reynoso, a licensed vocational nurse at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center and a member of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West: "Props. 41 and 42 were put on the ballot to trick voters into making a billionaire tax impossible to enforce. Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure means: The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: The state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including Yes to Protect Retirement and Life Savings campaign website, argue: “Rising costs are affecting families everywhere. California’s high cost of living and existing taxes make it difficult to save.” Opponents say: Opponents argue: Erica Olivo Reynoso, a licensed vocational nurse at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center and a member of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West: "Props. 41 and 42 were put on the ballot to trick voters into making a billionaire tax impossible to enforce. Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure means: Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: Certain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including Reform California, argue: “Prop 43 is known as the Save Prop 13 - Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative. Prop 43 makes it harder for local politicians to raise your taxes by restoring the two-thirds vote requirement on any local tax measures.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Evolve California, argue: “This measure would require 2/3 voter approval to raise any new local revenue. If this measure passes, it will make California the hardest place in the country to raise local revenue.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): The initiative would require nonprofit federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and FQHC Look-Alikes to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue on expenses that advance the FQHC’s mission. The initiative defines this as the mission spend ratio, which would be calculated annually by the California Attorney General. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: The new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including Brisa Barrera, a healthcare worker at a community clinic in Santa Rosa, argue: “We’re calling for accountability because frontline workers and patients at community clinics deserve better.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the California Hospital Association, argue: “The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) also filed paperwork for a measure that would create a spending cap on administrative costs for federally qualified health centers.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a YES vote on this measure means: Certain public and private projects would be eligible for new project review and court challenge procedures. A Yes vote means: A YES vote on this measure 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. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) A No vote means: A NO vote on this measure means: Public and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures. (Official California Secretary of State / Legislative Analyst summary) Supporters say: Supporters, including Dan Dunmoyer, president and CEO of the California Building Industry Association, argue: “California’s housing shortage is one of the biggest drivers of our affordability crisis, and project delays only make it worse.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club California, argue: “We strongly oppose it. We know that what they are really trying to do is eliminate a lot of the environmental safeguards that have existed for a long time.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side.Proposition 1 — Authorizes Bonds For Housing Affordability Programs. Legislative Statute.
The state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by the Legislature 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. Fiscal Impact : Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.
Proposition 2 — Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by the Legislature 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. Fiscal Impact : State budget reserves would be higher.
Proposition 3 — Provides Permanent Funding For Schools And Health Care By Extending Existing Tax On High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
The initiative would amend the California Constitution to make permanent the state’s top marginal tax rates on higher incomes, which are set to expire in 2031.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education. Fiscal Impact : Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.
Proposition 4 — Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding Of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute.
State and local governments could create public campaign financing programs for public office candidates, subject to limits on which public funds could be us…Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by the Legislature 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. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.
Proposition 5 — Changes Recall Election Process For Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Recall elections would no longer include a question about who should fill the vacancy.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by the Legislature 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. Fiscal Impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.
Proposition 37 — Creates Loan Program For Middle-Income Buyers Of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute.
The state would create a new homebuying assistance program.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: No direct state or local costs.
Proposition 38 — Authorizes Bonds For Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 38 would issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.
Proposition 39 — Prohibits Citizens From Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Voters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.
Proposition 40 — Imposes One-Time Tax On Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.
The initiative would enact a one-time tax of 5% on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion, including share…Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires.
Proposition 41 — Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues From State Spending Limit. Requires Audits For New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
When special taxes are proposed by voter initiatives, the California State Auditor would review programs funded by the tax before the initiative appears on t…Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.
Proposition 42 — Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes And Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
The state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.
Proposition 43 — Limits Voters’ Ability To Raise Revenues For Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Certain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by the Legislature 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. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.
Proposition 44 — Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% Of Revenue On Program Services. Initiative Statute.
The initiative would require nonprofit federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and FQHC Look-Alikes to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue on…Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.
Proposition 45 — Modifies Environmental Review For Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.
Certain public and private projects would be eligible for new project review and court challenge procedures.Official ballot wording
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 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. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.
Know someone voting? Send them this page.