Rev.8/16/2026 - See Results of November 2024 and November 2022 Propositions at bottom of this page.
November 2026 Propositions
Ballots mailed by October 5. But Election Integrity CA recommends voting in person.
Quick Guide (See below for details about each Proposition)
PROP 1 (NO - RC, HB, CC, SCC)
PROP 2 (NO - RC, CC, SCC)
PROP 3 (NO - RC, CC, SCC)
PROP 4 (NO - RC, CAGOP, CC, SCC)
PROP 5 (NO - RC, CAGOP, CC, SCC)
PROP 37 (NO - RC, CAGOP, HB, CC, SCC)
PROP 38 (YES - RC, but NO - HB, CC, SCC)
PROP 39 (YES - RC, CAGOP, CRA, HB, CC, SCC)
PROP 40 (NO - RC, HB, CC, SCC)
PROP 41 (YES - RC, CC, SCC)
PROP 42 (YES - RC, HB, CC, SCC)
PROP 43 (YES - HJTA, HB, RC, CAGOP, CRA, CC, SCC)
PROP 44 (NO - RC, CC, SCC)
PROP 45 (YES - RC, CC, SCC)
Generally, bond propositions are a bad deal for taxpayers. We lose half the total amount to interest paid to the investors and banks. The projects we voted for only get half the stated money. It is far better to budget that 50% that the project would have gotten from a bond sale using available taxes if the project is that important. Even arch-Democrat Governor Jerry Brown (the younger) said that California is floating way too many long-term bonds to be fiscally responsible. We cannot borrow ourselves into solvency. It is as if a single-income person can manage 30 mortgages without rental income at the same time. Crazy huh? That’s California. - Harry
PROP 1 (NO - RC, HB, CC, SCC) - SB 417 (Limón) The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond – Borrows $11.25 Billion in bonds for Housing Projects
PROP 2 (NO - RC, CC, SCC) - ACA 20 (Gabriel) Save for California's Future – Guts the State Spending Limit and Cancels Tax Rebates
PROP 3 (NO - RC, CC, SCC) - PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND HEALTHCARE BY EXTENDING EXISTING TAX ON HIGH INCOMES. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. – Income Tax Increase - Makes permanent 2012 tax rates for high-income Californians, set to expire in 2031. Rates apply to personal income over about $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household (2024 levels; adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools, 11% to community colleges. Allows local school boards to decide how revenues are spent; bars use for administrative costs. Increases General Fund revenues for education, healthcare, budget reserves, and other programs. Legislative Analyst: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income taxes (in today’s dollars) by making a tax on high income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031
PROP 4 (NO - RC, CAGOP, CC, SCC) - SB 42 (Umberg) Political Reform Act of 1974: public campaign financing: California Fair Elections – Gives Taxpayer Dollars to Politicians' Campaigns
PROP 5 ( NO - RC, CAGOP, CC, SCC) - SCA 1 (Newman) Elections: recall of state officers – Weakens the Right to Recall Politicians
PROP 37 (NO - RC, CAGOP, HB, CC, SCC) - CREATES LOAN PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE-INCOME BUYERS OF QUALIFIED NEW HOMES - Borrows $25 Billion for Housing Projects in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a “qualified new home” (new construction or first sale of converted nonresidential property, priced below about $1 million–$1.5 million, depending on county, adjusted annually). Borrowers must be California residents for one year, plan to occupy the home, earn less than 200% of area median income, and pay at least 3% down. Requires that bonds be repaid by homeowners’ mortgage payments, not State. Legislative Analyst: No costs [Well, none except for excessive number of defaults on these high-risk loans. No cost to State since we taxpayers will fund these risky loans and must pay ongoing interest on defaults. - HB]
PROP 38 (YES - RC but NO - HB, CC, SCC) - AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH. – Public-Private Partnership Bonds for Immunology Research - Authorizes $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research (technologies that use body’s immune system to treat disease), allocated equally between (1) a University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health based on specified criteria, and (2) a grant program for public or nonprofit universities and institutions. Requires half of research money go to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease research. Requires funding recipients to sell technology and drugs derived from research in California for 20% below national average price. Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds. Legislative Analyst: Increased costs of $500 million annually for 25 years to repay the bonds. The state could recoup part or all subsequent decades if the funded research leads to discoveries that generate revenue, though this is uncertain.
PROP 39 (YES - RC, CAGOP, CRA, HB, CC, SCC) - ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL VOTER IDENTIFICATION AND CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Voter ID to restore trust and confidence in elections. - Original Ballot title was: “Requires Voter ID and Citizenship Verification for Elections”. State Democrats with a liberal judge changed the ballot title to “PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. 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.”
Under current law, when registering to vote, individuals must already state under penalty of perjury that they are United States citizens and provide information to verify their identity (e.g., birthdate, driver’s license or Social Security number). This measure would amend the California Constitution to further require that:
voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail;
the State provide voter identification cards on request; and
elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified.
Legislative Analyst: One-time costs in the tens of millions of dollars to prepare for implementation. Increased annual costs ranging in the tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars to fulfill new requirements related to elections administration.
PROP 40 (NO - RC, HB, CC, SCC) - IMPOSES ONE-TIME TAX ON CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND TRUSTS. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – ["Billionaire" Tax That Becomes an "Everybody" Tax - RC] - Imposes one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion; covered assets include businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, but exclude real property and some pensions and retirement accounts. Allocates 90% of these tax revenues for health care, 10% for food assistance or education-related programs; prohibits using revenues to replace existing funding for these purposes. Exempts such tax revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding, budget reserves, and state spending limit. Legislative Analyst: Temporary increase in revenues from a new tax on the wealth of billionaires. These wealth tax revenues probably would add up to tens of billions spread over several years. Likely ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions or more per year. [Such ongoing decrease especially after the State runs out of other people’s money. It has a retroactive provision that reaches back to punish past decisions you made before the law existed. - HB]
PROP 41 (YES - RC, CC, SCC) - REQUIRES AUDITS OF PROGRAMS FUNDED BY NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT ARE EXCLUDED FROM EXISTING VOTER-APPROVED STATE SPENDING LIMIT. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT – Audit Special Taxes - For statewide special taxes, requires (1) a pre-election audit of programs that would receive funding from a special tax proposed by voter initiative, and (2) recurring audits of programs funded by all special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. Prohibits any new state taxes, enacted after January 1, 2026, that exclude their revenues from existing voter-approved state spending limit, including any new taxes that appear on the same ballot as this measure. Legislative Analyst: Unknown Effect. Net costs or savings resulting from the measure would depend on (1) how many special tax initiatives qualify for a one-time audit but are not approved by voters, (2) the number of pages that are added to the Voter Information Guide each election cycle, and (3) the level of savings that are identified and implemented as a result of the audits
PROP 42 (YES - RC, HB, CC, SCC) - PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. - Stop the Savings Tax - Prohibits any new state tax that either (1) taxes the ownership or control of personal property (including retirement accounts, financial assets, investment accounts, business interests, and intellectual property), or (2) applies retroactively based on the taxpayer’s conduct, activities, or a status that occurred before the new tax’s effective date, with limited exceptions. Applies to taxes that are enacted or take effect on or after January 1, 2026, including taxes that appear on the same ballot as this measure. Legislative Analyst: Possibility that tax revenues will be lower in the future. [Such a decrease due to stopping the State from raiding your already previously taxed lifetime savings. Vote YES. - HB]
PROP 43 (YES - HJTA, HB, RC, CAGOP, CRA, CC, SCC) - ACA 22 (Wicks) Local taxes: limitation - (Saves “Prop 13”) - Protect taxpayers by strengthening local taxpayer protections - “In 2024, the California Legislature sought to make it easier to raise taxes with Proposition 5, defeated at the ballot. The Legislature advanced a constitutional amendment, ACA 22, to close a loophole that had allowed special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13,” said HJTA President Jon Coupal. 6/25/2026 With the Legislature’s strong endorsement of the two-thirds vote requirement to pass all special taxes, and the removal of “poison pill” ACA 13 from the November ballot (See below), the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association agreed to withdraw its SAVE PROP 13 initiative. Pass this Local Taxpayer Protection Act (PROP 43)
PROP 44 (NO - RC, CC, SCC) - REQUIRES COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS SPEND 90% OF REVENUE ON PROGRAM SERVICES. – Costly Mandates on Community Health Clinics - Requires nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics that provide primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) to spend at least 90% of their revenue on program services advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services, rather than management and overhead. Department of Public Health may waive spending requirement in exceptional circumstances. Authorizes Attorney General to publish guidance defining qualifying expenditures. Imposes monetary penalties for noncompliance, which may be refunded if centers become compliant within five years. Authorizes criminal charges for false reports and schemes to artificially increase spending ratio. Legislative Analyst: Cost of up to the low tens of millions of dollars annually to enforce the new requirement that nonprofit safety net health clinics spend at least 90 percent of annual revenue on certain types of expenses, much of which would be covered by fees and penalties charged on the affected entities.
PROP 45 (YES - RC, CC, SCC) - MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. – Reduce Housing Costs by Cutting Red Tape = Amends California Environmental Quality Act to expedite environmental review of specified categories (including most housing, transportation, water, health, and clean energy projects). For these types of projects, this measure:
sets deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions for project;
allows expedited review of project’s environmental impacts, limiting public agencies’ current obligation to consider a range of feasible project alternatives to reduce environmental impacts; and
limits court review of project approvals by establishing deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits and limiting evidence court may consider and relief it can order.
Legislative Analyst: Costs in the tens of millions annually for the first several years. Over the long term, the annual net fiscal effects are uncertain, but governments likely would experience net savings due to reduced administrative and legal workload. Net fiscal effects on state trial courts ranging from annual savings of up to the tens of millions to annual costs of up to the low tens of millions.
REMOVED. ACA 13 [NO - CAGOP, HB, HJTA] (Ward) CONSTITUTION: Voting thresholds.- “In 2024, the California Legislature sought to make it easier to raise taxes with Proposition 5, defeated at the ballot. Today the Legislature voted to make it harder to raise taxes by advancing a constitutional amendment, ACA 22, to close a loophole that had allowed some special taxes to pass with less than the two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13,” said HJTA President Jon Coupal. 6/25/2026 With the Legislature’s strong endorsement of the two-thirds vote requirement to pass all special taxes, and the removal of “poison pill” ACA 13 from the November ballot, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association agreed to withdraw its original SAVE PROP 13 initiative from the ballot. Pass the Local Taxpayer Protection Act as ACA 22 (PROP 43).
DATA SOURCES
Source: California Republican Party (CAGOP) - 7/30
Source: California Republican Assembly (CRA) - 7/18
Source: Howard Jarvia Taxpayer Assoc PAC (HJTA)
Source: Reform California, Carl DeMaio (RC) - 7/30
Source: Save California.Com (SCC) - 8/13
Source: Connie Cox (CC), Realtor, TVR Member - 8/13
Source: Harry Briley (HB), Source of this commentary
Seniors: If you are over 65, file with your local school district to waive locally passed property tax for schools (state-wide school taxes cannot be waved). See your property tax bill to see if your school district offers a local exclusion to seniors.
School Bonds do not fall under the Prop 13 taxing authority 67% to pass. Instead, they only need 55% to pass
Data Source: Initiative and Referendum Qualification Status :: California Secretary of State - The TVR does not take positions directly, but the Board agreed to pass along what conservatives are saying about these propositions appearing on your ballot.
Results of November 2024 Propositions
Rev. 11/16/2024 - The County on 11/20 listed 71% of registered voters cast ballots
Statewide Voted:
2: YES // 3: YES // 4: YES // 5: NO // 6: NO // 32: NO // 33: NO // 34: YES // 35: YES // 36: YES
Alameda Co Voted:
2: YES // 3: YES // 4: YES // 5: YES // 6: YES // 32: YES // 33: NO // 34: NO // 35: YES // 36: YES
ACGOP Recommended:
2: NO // 3: NO // 4: NO // 5: NO // 6: NO // 32: NO // 33: NO // 34: YES // 35: YES // 36: YES
Coast/Rural Split?
SPLIT SPLIT SPLIT WHOLE WHOLE SPLIT WHOLE SPLIT WHOLE WHOLE
The State and County GOP disagreed with the Statewide sentiments on these:
2 - Bond: Education finance: school facilities: K-12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety - [NO - ACGOP]
3 - Constitution: MARRIAGE EQUALITY [Neutral - CAGOP, NO - ACGOP]
4 - Bond: $10 Billion Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air [NO - ACGOP]
The State and County GOP matched Statewide sentiments on these:
5 - Constitution: Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure. [NO]
6 - Constitution: Bans involuntary servitude in state prisons. [NO]
32 - RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. [NO]
33 - EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. [NO]
34 - RESTRICTS SPENDING BY HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS MEETING SPECIFIED CRITERIA. [YES]
35 - PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. [YES]
36 - ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. [YES]
Results of November 2022 Propositions
Overwhelming decisions with no progressive coast versus rural split
Statewide: 1: YES // 26: NO // 27: NO // 28: YES // 29: NO // 30: NO // 31: YES
Recommended: 1: NO // 26: NO // 27: NO // 28: ---- // 29: NO // 30: NO // 31: NO
Prop Title Yes% No%
1 Constitution: Reproductive Freedom 65% 35% Nearly all Counties
26 Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands 32% 68% All Counties .. Had signatures for 2024
27 Online Wagering Outside Tribal Lands 17% 83% All Counties .. Had signatures for 2024
28 School Arts and Music Funding 62% 38% Nearly all Counties
29 Regulates Kidney Dialysis Clinics 30% 70% All Counties
30 Tax to Fund ZEV/Wildfire Programs 41% 59% Nearly all Counties
31 Prohibit some Tobacco Products 62% 38% Nearly all Counties
Comments:
Prop 1 Californian Constitution now enforces no limits nor questions asked whatsoever on any abortion
Props 26/27 The gambling steep defeats has not stopped them for 2024! They have the signatures again!
Prop 29 Third election this Proposition has been soundly defeated. Will they try again in 2024?
Prop 31 Passage probably a reaction to anything Big Tobacco