FALL 2026
The opinions expressed here are solely my own. I reserve the right to be very wrong.
Look here for the full voter guide from the Secretary of State –https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2026/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf
Proposition 1 – AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS.
Here we have an $11.25 billion bond issue for housing. This is so uncontroversial that there is no ballot argument submitted against it. The state has floated bonds like this for decades. I remember reading one in the sample ballot when I was in high school. Yes, I was into that stuff. The bond pays for itself in part through payments from those buying the homes. I like that it also pays for some of the infrastructure. You can’t keep housing affordable if you have to add extensive sewers and water system costs for example.
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 2 – INCREASES STATE’S RAINY DAY FUND.
Right now, the state’s rainy day fund is capped at 10%. Prop 2 doubles that to 20%. Because the state’s revenue swings wildly depending on how the stock market is doing. Capital gains paid on sales of stocks and other investments are a big part of the state’s revenue. In the past, there have been tax rebates when the rainy day fund hits the cap. That sounds great, but it’s always followed by a slump that drives the state budget into the red. It makes much more sense to save in good years to cover the bad. There is more to this measure, but that is the heart of it. The opposition points to government watchdogs opposing it. As the proponents note, calling yourself a watchdog doesn’t make you one. They are groups with their own axes to grind or working to make a name for themselves. Be skeptical.
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 3 – PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND HEALTH CARE BY EXTENDING EXISTING TAX ON HIGH INCOMES.
The key words here are “extending existing tax.” It’s not new and contains no mechanism to expand it or increase it. The existing tax was approved in 2012 and expires in 2030. Prop 3 would make that tax permanent. It applies to individuals making over $371 thousand a year and couples making over $743 thousand. The tax ranges from 1% for that lowest level to 3% for individuals making over $743 thousand and couples making over $1.5 million. From the revenues, 40% are dedicated to schools. The rest goes primarily to healthcare, which consumes over 40% of the state’s budget. If you are okay with that tax on high earners continuing, vote yes. If you want them to get a tax cut, vote no.
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 4 – REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
Our current system of campaign financing is absolutely horrible. I am lucky that in a place like Lomita, a campaign isn’t too expensive – and I have a wife willing to pay for most of it. In many cities, campaigns are quite costly, leading to special interests getting overly involved along with political action committees that are responsible to no one. I would like to see all that changed, but this is a step in the right direction. Prop 4 allows the state and cities to set up public financing systems. It is certainly worth a shot. Too many good people avoid running for office because they don’t want to be on the fundraising treadmill. That is bad news for all of us. You shouldn’t have to have a generous spouse to be able to run to serve your community.
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 5 – CHANGES RECALL ELECTION PROCESS FOR STATEWIDE OFFICERS.
In a recall campaign against a sitting governor (or a standing one of course, but I digress), it is a two part question. The voters are first asked if they want to throw the governor out. The second part on the same ballot is to pick a replacement. The winner is likely based on past elections to have well under 50% support. It is nuts. We have a lieutenant governor who is supposed to take over if the governor cannot serve. We elect that person. Prop 5 takes away that second half of the question and makes the lieutenant governor the governor. Recall elections are expensive and should not be done to circumvent the previous election. It should be clear who those voting on the recall will get.
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 37 – CREATES LOAN PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE-INCOME BUYERS OF QUALIFIED NEW HOMES.
This is a $25 billion revenue bond (meaning it pays for itself) to help people buy homes. We have a logjam in the housing market because of high interest rates and borrowing costs that is driving up the cost of buying a home and leaving sellers stuck as well. Homebuyers would pay back the bond cost in their mortgage payments. There was no opposition statement submitted on this measure.
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 38 – AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH.
Prop 38 authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. I have mixed feelings about this. Why just that kind of research? The payoff to the state is very unclear. On the other hand, scientific research has been decimated by Washington, and that will definitely hurt our state in the long run. Did you know that California is far and away the leader in venture capital financing? How much? Like 90%. Encouraging basic research will have to be a state responsibility for now unfortunately. I will support on that basis.
Recommendation: YES
Proposition 39 – PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
I will not mince words on this one. Its purpose is voter suppression and not election integrity. The proponents say they are trying to ensure the legitimacy of the vote, but they are a very partisan group trying to tilt the system in their direction. They claim to be fighting voter fraud, which is an extremely rare thing. We have seen similar measures in other states, and the results have been clear in making it harder for women and the poor to vote. Then again, that is their purpose. Just say no.
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 40 – IMPOSES ONE-TIME TAX ON CERTAIN TAXPAYERS.
Prop 40 imposes a 5% tax on much of the wealth of billionaires in the state. While I have no sympathies for those folks, this measure is a mess. It wasn’t put together in a deliberative process, the numbers and what it covers are arbitrary as far as I can tell, and even the governor opposes it. If you were going to do something like this, it would have to be national to avoid turning into a game of moving assets. The ads the billionaires opposing the measure are putting out are mostly baloney. No, it cannot be extended to everyone. The state constitution does not allow that. The legislature could make only small changes. They are desperate to hold onto their money. I get that, but some honesty would be appreciated.
Recommendation: NO
Propositions 41 and 42 – PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES.
And
PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES.
I am putting these together because they are both poison pills to knock out Prop 40. If 40 passes and either measure gets more votes than 40, then Prop 40 is invalidated. Plus, they add on more things to keep them from having to pay in the future. More dishonesty. While I oppose Prop 40, these measures need to go down in a blaze of glory.
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 43 – LIMITS VOTERS’ ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES.
This one is the latest attempt to make it impossible for local governments to raise taxes. Prop 43 would require a ⅔ vote of the public to pass a tax. No one likes raising taxes. And city council members have to pay too! We don’t work on commission. In Lomita, we recently asked the voters for a sales tax increase primarily to pay for sewer replacement. It passed with almost 62% of the vote. Under Prop 43, that would have been a no vote. Should ⅓ of the voters plus one person be able to veto a decision of the other ⅔? That’s just not right. It’s easy to build a vocal minority, but it certainly doesn’t get things done.
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 44 – REQUIRES COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS SPEND 90% OF REVENUE ON PROGRAM SERVICES.
Prop 44 is the latest initiative from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). This time, it’s to require that clinics spend at least 90% of their revenue on providing care. That’s a nice idea, but it is totally unreasonable. They are trying to force these places to hire union labor. They may succeed at that while forcing many clinics to close. No thanks.
Recommendation: NO
Proposition 45 – MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS.
The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, is so routinely abused that I have said for years that we need to put the E back in CEQA. Instead, it is used to stop business competitors, force the hiring of workers from a particular union, or slow down a project anywhere near where wealthy people live. Want to know why the bullet train has taken so long and is so expensive? It is largely because of CEQA challenges by those with their own agenda. Prop 45 rolls back some of the requirements of CEQA or tightens them up, such as requiring an agency to say upfront what information they need to review a project and allowing challenges based on the laws in effect at the time the proposal was submitted instead of a moving target. It also shortens the public input time, which is wise instead of it dragging on forever. CEQA is badly broken and is not protecting the environment. This is a step in the right direction.
Recommendation: YES