WayVote.
Join the beta
San Francisco · General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026

What's on your ballot, San Francisco.

Every measure and contest we hold for San Francisco, in the official documents' own words: what each measure does, what it costs, what a YES and a NO mean where a card sets them out, and who is running. Nothing here tells you how to vote. Every item links to the official document it came from.

Oct 19
Registration deadline (same-day registration after)
Nov 3
Election Day, 7am–8pm
By city

City measures

10 measures in 1 city. Pick your city above to see only yours.

A
Proposition A
City and County of San Francisco · Measure A
open
What it doesShall the City amend the Charter to align it with how some City departments currently operate, change some processes, eliminate or reorganize certain commissions and advisory bodies, and require the Board of Supervisors to amend voter-approved laws to enact some of these changes?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 66
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: The Charter is the City’s constitution and establishes the organization, powers, and responsibilities for many City departments. The Charter and other voter-approved laws also create many City commissions and advisory bodies and describe their powers, duties, membership and removal rules, and reporting requirements. Over time, some of these laws have become obsolete. The Charter and most laws passed by the voters can only be changed with voter approval. The Proposal: Proposition A would align the Charter with how some City departments currently operate, change some processes, and eliminate or reorganize certain commissions and advisory bodies. Proposition A would require the Board of Supervisors to amend voter-approved laws to enact some of these changes. Proposition A would: change the language of the Charter to reflect how some City departments currently operate in order to clarify responsibilities and update rules, procedures, and reporting requirements. change some processes. For example: allowing legal settlements to be approved by resolution instead of by ordinance. require a task force to meet every ten years to recommend changes to commissions.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 66
Fiscal effectController’s Statement on “A” City Controller Greg Wagner has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition A: Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a moderate impact on the cost of government, saving …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 66–67
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 66

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 68

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 150–183)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 69 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 68 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 66 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 66–67 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 150–183
B
Proposition B
City and County of San Francisco · Measure B
open
What it doesShall the City amend the Charter to authorize the City to establish a municipal finance corporation and a public bank?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 72
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: A municipal finance corporation (MFC) is a government-owned non-profit corporation that makes loans but does not take deposits. A public bank is a government-owned non-profit corporation that both makes loans and takes deposits. There is no local law authorizing the City to create a municipal finance corporation or a public bank. The Proposal: Proposition B would amend the City Charter to authorize the City to establish a municipal finance corporation if the City has sufficient funding and resources. After three years of operation, the municipal finance corporation may become a public bank. The MFC would make loans but would not take deposits. If the MFC becomes a public bank, the public bank would make loans and also take deposits. The MFC and public bank would provide services to support: affordable housing development, affordable homeownership, small business development, environmental sustainability, and environmental justice. These services would be available to individual City residents and to projects and businesses located in the City. Under Proposition B, the MFC and public bank would each be governed by a board of directors. Each board would be appointed and overseen by its own oversight NO commission. The members of each oversight commission would be appointed by the Board of Supervisors, Mayor, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Controller, and City Attorney.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 72
Fiscal effectHowever, if the City moves forward with establishing a MFC and subsequently a Public Bank, as authorized by the proposed Charter amendment, the costs would be significant, ranging from approximately $310 million to $460 million over an eight-year period, according to 2023 Reinvestment Working Group …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 72–73
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 72

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 74

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 183–189)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 75 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 74 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 72 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 72–73 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 183–189
C
Proposition C
City and County of San Francisco · Measure C
open
What it doesShall the City amend the Charter to change how the City’s annual contributions to the Housing Trust Fund are set, increase funding and expand programs for affordable housing, and extend the Fund to 2058?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 80
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: The City has a Housing Trust Fund (HTF) to support the creation or preservation of affordable housing and affordable home ownership. Every year, the City provides funding to the HTF, and the annual contribution is adjusted up or down based on changes in the City’s unrestricted General Fund revenue. Last year, the City contributed $50.8 million to the HTF. The City may use HTF funds for: building, purchasing, and improving affordable housing; downpayment assistance loans for households earning up to 120% of Area Median Income (AMI) and for emergency first responders; assistance to households earning up to 120% of AMI to improve their housing and avoid housing loss; grant programs for specific types of neighborhood improvements; and administrative costs. The Housing Trust Fund that supports these programs is set to expire in 2043. The Proposal: Proposition C would change how the City’s annual contributions to the Housing Trust Fund (HTF) are set, increase funding and expand programs for affordable housing, and extend the Fund’s expiration date. Starting in 2028, the City’s annual contribution would grow based on the greater of either: any increases in local property tax revenue, or the percentage increase in the unrestricted General Fund from the prior year.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 80
Fiscal effectController’s Statement on “C” City Controller Greg Wagner has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition C: Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government of …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 81
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 80

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 82

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 189–192)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 83 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 82 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 80 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 81 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 189–192
D
Proposition D
City and County of San Francisco · Measure D
open
What it doesShall the City amend the Charter to increase the requirements for signature initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters in San Francisco (currently from about 10,600 to about 42,500 signatures), increase the requirements for calling special elections, allow signature initiatives to be withdrawn before an election, and remove the ability of a minority of Board of Supervisors members or the Mayor to place measures on the ballot?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 86
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors (Board) has 11 members. A measure can be either an ordinance to change the law or a declaration of policy. Under the City Charter, measures can be placed on the ballot in several ways, including: By a majority vote of the Board; By four or more Board members without a Board vote; By the Mayor without a Board vote; or By a signature initiative (petition) signed by at least 2% of the registered voters in San Francisco, currently about 10,600 signatures. Currently San Francisco has over 530,000 registered voters. Signature initiatives usually appear on the ballot at the next regularly scheduled election. Signature initiatives may call for an earlier “special” election on an ordinance if the petition is signed by at least 10% of the votes cast for all candidates for Mayor in the last election. Currently, this is about 39,000 signatures. Once a signature initiative is submitted to the Department of Elections, it cannot be withdrawn.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 86
Fiscal effectThe proposed Charter amendment would (1) require the approval of a majority of the Board of Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot, (2) eliminate the Mayor’s ability to directly place an ordinance on the ballot, (3) increase the voter signature threshold for initiatives …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 87
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 86

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 88

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 192–195)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 89 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 88 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 86 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 87 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 192–195
E
Proposition E
City and County of San Francisco · Measure E
open
What it doesShall the City amend the Charter to give the City Administrator more authority by centralizing the City’s purchasing rules and processes, changing how the City approves purchasing rules, changing when contracts and leases require Board of Supervisors approval, and extending the City Administrator’s term?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 96
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: The City Administrator’s Office is responsible for most of the City’s purchasing. However, authority for the City’s purchasing and technology is shared among the City Administrator’s Office, the Board of Supervisors, the Mayor, and some City departments. Rules Regulating Purchasing: The Board of Supervisors (Board) may adopt ordinances that set the rules about how the City selects contractors and enters into contracts for goods, services, construction, and grants (referred to below as Purchasing). Board Approval of Various Agreements: With some exceptions, the City’s Charter requires the Board to approve: Contracts and leases that bring in $1,000,000 or more in revenue to the City, and Contracts that cost the City $10,000,000 or more. The Board must also approve certain amendments to these agreements. City Administrator’s Term: The Mayor appoints the City Administrator to a five-year term, subject to Board approval. City Administrator’s Authority: The City Administrator sets Purchasing rules and processes governing goods and services except for some goods and services of the Municipal Transportation Agency, Public Utilities Commission, Port Commission, and some arts departments. The City Administrator also oversees technology policies and manages disposal of City personal property for most departments.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 96–97
Fiscal effectThe proposed Charter amendment would (1) give the City Administrator the exclusive authority to introduce ordinances that govern City contracting, with some exceptions; (2) grant the City Administrator the authority to set Citywide rules for contracting; (3) provide the City Administrator the authority to establish …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 97
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 97

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 98

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 195–203)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 99 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 98 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 96 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 97 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 195–203 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 96–97
F
Proposition F
City and County of San Francisco · Measure F
open
What it doesShall the City amend the Charter to expand the Mayor’s authority to transfer responsibilities between departments, hire deputy mayors, and hire some and fire most department heads; and to allow City officials to remove members of boards and commissions without cause?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 102
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: The Mayor is the chief executive officer of the City. The Mayor directly supervises nearly 50 City departments, which are established by Charter or ordinance. Most City departments are established by Charter. Transfer of Functions: The Mayor can transfer responsibilities between departments established by ordinance, as long as the Board of Supervisors (Board) does not object. The Mayor cannot transfer responsibilities for departments established by the Charter. Deputy Mayors: The Mayor cannot hire deputy mayors to supervise most departments established by the Charter. Department Heads: In most cases, the Mayor must select a department head from candidates recommended by the board or commission that oversees that department. Usually, the board or commission can fire the department head, but the Mayor cannot. Commissioners: In addition to the Mayor, the Board and other officials appoint members to City boards and commissions. Appointed members can usually only be suspended or removed if the member engaged in official misconduct or committed certain felonies. The Proposal: Proposition F would amend the Charter to allow the Mayor to do the following: Transfer of Functions: Transfer responsibilities between most departments or combine departments under a single department head, regardless of whether the Department was established by ordinance or Charter and as long as the Board does not object. The Mayor cannot eliminate any responsibilities established by Charter.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 102–103
Fiscal effectThe average annual cost for a deputy mayor would be approximately $250,000.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 103
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 103

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 104

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 203–222)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 105 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 104 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 102 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 103 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 203–222 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 102–103
G
Proposition G
City and County of San Francisco · Measure G
open
What it doesShall the City close Sunset Dunes Park from Monday at 4:00 a.m. through Friday at 6:00 p.m., unless a holiday falls on a weekday, in order to reopen the roadway known as the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles during that time?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 110
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: Sunset Dunes Park is an open recreational space that replaced the Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard (Upper Great Highway) and is closed to private vehicles at all times. Sunset Dunes Park (former Upper Great Highway) is open to emergency vehicles, official government vehicles, intra-park transit shuttle buses, and similar authorized vehicles. Map provided by San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. The Proposal: Proposition G would close Sunset Dunes Park from Monday at 4:00 a.m. through Friday at 6:00 p.m., unless a holiday falls on a weekday, in order to reopen the roadway known as the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles during that time. The Upper Great Highway will remain open to emergency vehicles, official government vehicles, intra-park transit shuttle buses, and similar authorized vehicles. Proposition G would require the City to obtain all necessary approvals, including any permits required by the California Coastal Act or from other government agencies, to reopen the roadway known as the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 110
Fiscal effectController’s Statement on “G” Deputy City Controller ChiaYu Ma has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition G: Should the proposed Ordinance be approved by the voters and the roadway is open to private vehicles, in my opinion, it would significantly increase …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 110–111
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 110

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 112

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 222–224)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 113 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 112 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 110 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 110–111 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 222–224
H
Proposition H
City and County of San Francisco · Measure H
open
What it doesShall the City fund Muni service through a new annual parcel tax on real estate at rates ranging from $129 per parcel up to a maximum of $400,000 per parcel, depending on the type of property and its size and adjusted annually for inflation, for estimated revenue of $177 million a year for 15 years?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 126
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: The Municipal Railway (Muni) provides public transit in San Francisco, including bus, light rail, streetcar, and cable car. Muni provides over 500,000 rides per weekday. Muni service is funded by transit fares and local, state and federal sources, but not through a parcel tax. State law limits the total revenue, including tax revenue, that the City may spend each year. The voters may approve increases to this limit for up to four years. Owners of rent-controlled residential property in the City are generally limited in what costs they can pass onto their tenants. The Proposal: Starting July 1, 2027, and continuing until June 30, 2042, Proposition H would fund Muni service through a new annual parcel tax on real estate in San Francisco. The tax would be adjusted annually for inflation. The proposed 2027 tax rates would be: Single-Family Residential Parcels: A base tax of $129. For buildings with more than 3,000 square feet of building area: $0.42 per square foot between 3,001 and 5,000, and $1.99 per square foot over 5,000. Multifamily Residential Parcels: A base tax of $249.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 126–127
Fiscal effectController’s Statement on “H” City Controller Greg Wagner has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition H: Should the proposed parcel tax be approved by the voters, in my opinion, based on currently available parcel data it would generate approximately $177 million …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 127
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 127

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 128

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 224–235)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 129 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 128 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 126 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 127 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 224–235 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 126–127
I
Proposition I
City and County of San Francisco · Measure I
open
What it doesShall the City permanently dedicate half of the transfer tax revenues collected when certain real estate with a value or sales price of more than $10,000,000 changes hands, which will continue to be taxed at rates of 5.5% to 6%, to be spent only on affordable housing, including social housing developments and housing assistance, and exempt certain sales from the dedicated portion of the tax, for an estimated annual revenue decrease of approximately $1 million?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 134
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: The City collects a transfer tax when most real estate changes hands. The tax rates depend on the property’s sales price or value and the two highest tax rates are: 5.5% for properties between $10,000,000 and under $25,000,000, and 6% for properties at $25,000,000 or more. Some real estate transfers are exempt from the tax or are subject to reduced rates. Revenues generated from the transfer tax may be spent for any governmental purpose. The Board of Supervisors (Board) may amend, reduce, suspend, or repeal the transfer tax without voter approval. Voters must approve any increase of the transfer tax. State law limits the total revenue, including tax revenue, the City may spend each year. The voters may approve increases to this limit for up to four years.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 134–135
Fiscal effectController’s Statement on “I” City Controller Greg Wagner has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition I: Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would represent a moderate annual decrease of approximately $1 million to the …
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 135
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 135

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 136

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 235–241)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 137 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 136 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 134 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 135 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 235–241 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 134–135
J
Proposition J
City and County of San Francisco · Measure J
open
What it doesShall the City permanently apply a transfer tax of between 0.5% and 6% of a property’s fair market value, on the transfer of properties such as commercial, industrial, and large residential properties, that are transferred to a lender because of foreclosure or to avoid foreclosure, for estimated annual revenue of $100 million to $150 million?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 146
What changesDigest by the Ballot Simplification Council The Way It Is Now: San Francisco charges a tax when most real estate property in the City changes hands. The amount of the tax depends on the property’s sales price or value. When a lender takes over a property through foreclosure, or when an owner hands over a property to the lender to avoid foreclosure, there is a tax break. The lender pays tax only on the difference between what the property sold for and what is still owed to the lender, including interest and foreclosure costs. State law limits the total revenue, including tax revenue, the City may spend each year. The voters may approve increases to this limit for up to four years. The Proposal: Proposition J would apply a transfer tax for properties such as commercial, industrial, and large residential real estate that a lender takes through foreclosure or is handed over to the lender to avoid foreclosure. Starting March 1, 2027, these properties would be taxed on their full market value. The tax break would still apply to the transfer of: 1. single-family residences, 2. multi-family residential buildings with fewer than five units, and 3. mixed-use properties with fewer than five residential units and only one floor of non-residential space. Proposition J would increase the City’s spending limit for four years.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 146
Fiscal effectThe measure could bring an average of $100 million to $150 million annually over the first five years.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 146–147
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 146

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 148

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 241–242)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 149 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 148 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 146 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 146–147 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 241–242
Special districts

Measures for specific districts

1 measure.

RTM
Regional Measure RTM
Public Transit Revenue Measure District · Measure RTM
open
What it doesTo prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?
Source: City and County of San Francisco, p. 54
What changesPublic Transit Revenue Measure District’s Legal Counsel Impartial Analysis of Regional Transit Measure This measure was placed on the ballot by voter initiative, signed by the requisite number of voters within the Public Transit Revenue Measure District (“District”). The District was created by the Legislature through Senate Bill 63 (“SB 63”) in 2025 (Government Code sections 67700-67788), which was enacted to preserve and improve public transit service in the San Francisco Bay Area. The District comprises the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara, and the City and County of San Francisco, and is governed by the same board that governs the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (“MTC”). SB 63 authorizes District voters to approve a retail transactions and use tax (commonly referred to as a sales tax) for specified purposes. This measure would impose a tax of 0.5% in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara and 1.0% in the City and County of San Francisco. The tax would be imposed and collected in largely the same manner as a state-imposed sales tax. The tax would be in effect for 14 years and would not count toward the statutory limit on combined local sales tax rates. It is estimated that the tax would raise approximately $980 million per year.
Source: City and County of San Francisco, pp. 54–55
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.

What a YES and a NO vote mean: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 55

Who is for and against: in the official document, not set out on this card yet. Read it there: City and County of San Francisco, p. 56

Read the measure · the official text (pp. 58–62)
Sources: City and County of San Francisco, p. 57 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 56 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 54 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 58–62 · City and County of San Francisco, pp. 54–55 · City and County of San Francisco, p. 55
Statewide · everyone in California

State propositions

14 propositions, each in the Secretary of State's Official Voter Information Guide's own words, cited to its page.

1
Authorizes bonds for housing affordability programs.
State of California · Proposition 1
open
A YES vote meansThe state could borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.
A NO vote meansThe state could not borrow $11.25 billion to support veterans and affordable housing.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5
What it doesAuthorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including for California veterans, and to finance housing development projects seeking federal tax credits. Allocates funds:
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 14
TodayPublic Sector Funds Some Home Building. In most years, about 100,000 houses and apartments are built in California. Most of these housing units are built entirely with private dollars. Some, however, receive financial help from federal, state, or local governments. In the case of housing funded by the state, the state government generally provides local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private developers with grants or low-cost loans to fund a portion of the housing units’ construction costs. Typically, housing built with these funds must be sold or rented to Californians with low incomes.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 14–17
What changesNew General Obligation Bond for Housing. Proposition 1 allows the state to sell $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for housing purposes. This amount consists of (1) a $10 billion bond for a variety of state housing programs that would be repaid by the General Fund and (2) a $1.25 billion bond that would be repaid by veterans’ payments on their home loans. (The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons. For more information on the state’s General Fund-supported bonds, please see “Overview of State Bond Debt” later in this guide.) State Housing Programs.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 14–17
Fiscal effectIncreased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 14
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForUS Vets; CA Federation of Teachers; Self-Help for the Elderly; Habitat for Humanity CA; CA Alliance of Child & Family Services
AgainstNone submitted
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 100–105)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 19 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 18 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 14 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 100–105 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 14–17 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5
2
Increases state’s rainy day fund.
State of California · Proposition 2
open
A YES vote meansRules 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 meansRules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5
What it doesIncreases 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. Doubles the budget reserve cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues, requiring savings until Fund’s balance equals 20% of General Fund.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 20
TodayHow Does the State Spend Its Money? This year, the state plans to spend about $250 billion from the General Fund to pay for services to the public. The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services. About half of this spending is for schools, community colleges, and the state’s public universities.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 20–23
What changesSave More in the Rainy Day Fund. Proposition 2 requires the state to make deposits into the rainy day fund until it reaches 20 percent of General Fund taxes (instead of 10 percent of General Fund taxes). In addition, the state would make even larger deposits in years when revenues from taxes on investment gains are very high, like when the stock market is booming. Extend and Expand Extra Debt Payments. Proposition 2 also requires the state to make extra debt payments through 2040 (instead of through 2030). These debt payments would be the same as the amount initially deposited into the rainy day fund each year.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 20–23
Fiscal effect
State budget reserves would be higher.
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForCA Professional Firefighters; LA Chamber of Commerce; Gavin Newsom; Xavier Becerra; Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel
AgainstNone submitted
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 106–109)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 25 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 24 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 20 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 106–109 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 20–23 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 5
3
Provides permanent funding for schools and health care by extending existing tax on high incomes.
State of California · Proposition 3
open
A YES vote meansAn income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.
A NO vote meansAn income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6
What it doesMakes permanent the existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates for high- income Californians, currently set to expire in 2031. Rates apply to income over about $371,000 for single filers, $742,000 for joint filers, and $505,000 for heads of household (2025 levels; adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues 89% to K–12 schools, 11% to community colleges.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 26
TodayMost State Money Comes From the Income Tax. The income tax is the state’s largest tax. It pays for most spending from the state’s main operating account, the General Fund. The General Fund is the account the state uses to pay for most public services, including education, health care, and prisons.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 26–27
What changesProposition 3 makes the higher income tax rates established by Proposition 30 permanent instead of letting them expire in 2031. Figure 1 shows what income tax rates would be if this measure passes and what they would be if it is rejected.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 26–27
Fiscal effectMaintains $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.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 26
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForCalifornia Teachers Association; CA School Nurses Organization; California State PTA; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA
AgainstCalifornia Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 109–115)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 29 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 28 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 26 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 109–115 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 26–27 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6
4
Repeals prohibition against public funding of election campaigns.
State of California · Proposition 4
open
A YES vote meansState 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 meansState and most local governments would remain unable to create public campaign finance programs for public office candidates.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6
What it doesCurrent law prohibits state and local governments from using public funds for election campaigns except in charter cities and counties. 4 • This measure repeals that prohibition and allows state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to specified spending limits and meet eligibility criteria.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 30
TodayThe Political Reform Act. Many people, groups, and businesses spend money to support or oppose candidates for public office and ballot measures. California’s Political Reform Act sets rules for how money can be used in politics and requires public reporting of political spending.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 30–31
What changesLifts Ban on Use of Public Funds to Pay for Candidates’ Campaigns. Proposition 4 lifts the ban on using public funds for political candidates’ campaigns. Removing the ban allows state and local governments to create public campaign financing programs in the future if they wish. Proposition 4 does not create a public campaign finance system for the state or local governments directly. Sets Rules for Future State and Local Public Campaign Finance Programs.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 30–31
Fiscal effectOngoing 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.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 30
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForLeague of Women Voters of CA; California Nurses Association; Mental Health Advocacy; Social Security Works; Consumer Watchdog
AgainstCalifornia Taxpayers Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; Family Business Assn of California; United Latinos Action
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 115–118)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 33 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 32 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 30 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 115–118 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 30–31 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 6
5
Changes recall election process for statewide officers.
State of California · Proposition 5
open
A YES vote meansRecall 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 meansVoters would continue to be asked who should fill the vacancy as part of recall elections.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7
What it doesUnder current law, voters decide at the same election whether (1) to recall a state officer, and (2) who will replace that officer if recalled. Under this measure:
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 34
TodayElection of State Officials. The State Constitution establishes legislative, executive, and judicial state offices. Some state officials represent parts of the state, known as districts. Other state officials, like the Governor or Attorney General, represent the entire state. Voters elect people to represent them in state offices for set terms. For example, a state Assembly Member is elected to a two-year term and the Governor is elected to a four-year term. To run for a state office, candidates must submit specific nomination documents before the election. State law sets when this “nomination period” occurs. Recall of State Officials.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 34–37
What changesAs described below, Proposition 5 changes the recall process to make it like the existing process for filling 5 vacant state offices, except for the process to recall the Governor. Removes Second Question From Recall Elections. Proposition 5 removes the second question—who should replace a recalled official—from a recall election. This means, in future recall elections, voters would only decide whether to remove an elected official from a state office, not who would replace the official. Specifies Steps for Filling Vacant Offices. If a state official is recalled, Proposition 5 makes the office of the recalled official vacant.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 34–37
Fiscal effect
Net fiscal effect unknown.
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForNone submitted
AgainstNone submitted
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7
Read the measure · the official text (p. 118)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 39 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 38 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 34 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 118 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 34–37 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7
37
Creates loan program for middle-income buyers of qualified new homes.
State of California · Proposition 37
open
A YES vote meansThe 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 meansThe state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7
What it doesAuthorizes up to $25 billion 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).
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 40
TodayState Revenue Bonds. Bonds are a way that governments borrow money, most commonly for public projects such as schools or bridges. The state sells bonds to investors to receive up-front funding for these projects. Over time, investors are repaid with interest. The state sells two main types of bonds: general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. The state usually repays general obligation bonds using the state General Fund.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 40–41
What changesRevenue Bond to Pay for a New Down Payment Assistance Program. Proposition 37 allows CalHFA to sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds. CalHFA would use the bond funds to create a down payment assistance program called the “middle-class homeownership loan.” Each loan would cover up to 17 percent of the home price. (Homebuyers would need to provide a down payment of at least 3 percent of the home price.) Homeowners’ monthly payments on their loan would be designed to repay the bonds over time and cover the program’s administrative costs. CalHFA also would be required to keep interest costs for homebuyers as low as possible.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 40–41
Fiscal effect
No direct state or local costs.
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForUnited Nurses Associations of California; California Conference of Carpenters; California State Treasurer Fiona Ma
AgainstNone submitted
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 118–123)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 43 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 42 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 40 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 118–123 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 40–41 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 7
38
Authorizes bonds for immunology medical research.
State of California · Proposition 38
open
A YES vote meansThe state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.
A NO vote meansThe state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8
What it doesAuthorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research (technologies that use body’s immune system to treat disease), with half dedicated to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 44
TodayMedical Research and Development (R&D) Is a Multi- Stage Process. The first stage of this process is basic research, which focuses on discovering new knowledge about how the human body works. The next stage is applied and clinical research, which aims to develop and test treatments for specific diseases. Universities do most of the basic research, while companies do most of the applied and clinical research. The third R&D stage is to have regulators review new treatments to make sure they are safe and effective.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 44–45
What changesNew Bond for Specified Medical Research. Proposition 38 allows the state to issue an $8.4 billion general obligation bond for research in immunology and immunotherapy. Immunology is the study of the body’s immune system and how it protects the body from abnormal cells and other causes of disease. Immunotherapy develops treatments that help the immune system fight diseases more effectively. The measure requires that at least $4.2 billion of the bond funds be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 44–45
Fiscal effectIncreased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the medical research bond.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 44
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForMichael J. Fox Foundation; Alzheimer’s Los Angeles; Kidney Cancer Assoc; American Nurses Assoc\CA
AgainstRobert M Kaplan Ph.D.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 123–133)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 47 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 46 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 44 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 123–133 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 44–45 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8
39
Prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government-issued identification.
State of California · Proposition 39
open
A YES vote meansVoters would be required to present additional identifying information to elections officials each time they vote.
A NO vote meansA voter’s identity would continue to be established with the voter’s signature.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8
What it doesProhibits voting by mail unless voter designates a government-issued identification number for their voter registration.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 48
TodayElections Administration. County elections officials administer most elections in California. As part of this work, they print and mail ballots and other voting materials to registered voters. Some state agencies also have workload related to voting. For example, the Secretary of State oversees elections across the state and prepares and mails the state Voter Information Guide. United States Citizenship Required to Vote in Federal, State, and Almost All Local Elections. A person must
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 48–51
What changesRequires State and Local Elections Officials to Verify U.S. Citizenship Status of Registered Voters. Proposition 39 requires state and local elections officials to make “best efforts” using government data to verify that voters on the rolls are U.S. citizens. Proposition 39 requires elections officials to report every year the percentage of registered voters in each county whose citizenship status has been verified. Requires Voters to Select Government- Issued Identification for Voting by 39 Mail. Proposition 39 requires new and existing voters to select a government- issued identification in their voter registration to vote by mail. Requires Voters to Provide Additional Identifying Information to Vote. Proposition 39 requires voters to provide additional identifying information each time they cast a ballot in any election in California.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 48–51
Fiscal effectState and local government costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 48
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForThe Transparency Foundation; Latino American Political Assn; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; CA Women’s Leadership Assn
AgainstACLU California Action; Common Cause; League of Women Voters of California
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 133–134)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 53 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 52 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 48 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 133–134 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 48–51 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 8
40
Imposes one-time tax on certain taxpayers.
State of California · Proposition 40
open
A YES vote meansThe state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.
A NO vote meansThe state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9
What it doesImposes one-time tax of up to 5% on certain taxpayers 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.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 54
TodayCalifornia Is Home to Many Billionaires. Several of the wealthiest people in the world live in California. Wealth is the value of all the things a person owns. Wealth is different from income, which is how much a person earns in a set period of time, like one year. A person’s wealth typically is measured by their net worth. A person’s net worth is the value of all the things they own, like stocks, businesses, or other investments, minus their debts.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 54–55
What changesEstablishes One-Time Wealth Tax on Billionaires. Under Proposition 40, billionaires who were residents of California on January 1, 2026 would have to pay a one-time state tax equal to 5 percent of their net worth. The tax would be due in 2027. Taxpayers would have the option to spread the payments over five years but would have to pay more to do so. Real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts generally would be excluded from the tax. Most of the Money Must Be Spent on Health Care.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 54–55
Fiscal effectPossible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in state income tax revenue collected from billionaires.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 54
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForUS Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
AgainstCalifornia Primary Care Association; California School Boards Association; California Taxpayers Association
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 134–147)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 57 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 56 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 55 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 54 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 134–147 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 54–55 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9
41
Prohibits new state taxes that exclude revenues from state spending limit. Requires audits for new state special taxes.
State of California · Proposition 41
open
A YES vote meansWhen 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.
A NO vote meansThe California State Auditor’s responsibility to review government programs would not change. The state spending limit requirements would not change.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9
What it doesProhibits any new state taxes that exclude their revenues from the state spending limit approved by voters in 1979. For statewide special taxes, requires (1) a pre- election audit of programs that would receive funding from a voter-proposed special tax, and (2) recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 58
TodayElections Administration. The Secretary of State oversees elections across the state and prepares and mails the state Voter Information Guide (VIG). Voter Initiative Process. California citizens may propose state laws and constitutional amendments through the statewide initiative process. Supporters of an initiative collect signatures from registered voters to qualify their initiative for the ballot. State law sets how many valid signatures supporters must collect to qualify their initiative for the ballot.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 58–59
What changesRequires One-Time Audits Before Special Taxes Appear on the Ballot Through the Voter Initiative Process. Proposition 41 requires the State Auditor to review each program that would receive funds from a new or increased special tax proposed through the voter initiative process. This audit would occur after supporters collect 25 percent of the signatures needed to qualify a measure for the ballot, which is before it is known whether the initiative will qualify for the ballot.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 58–59
Fiscal effect
Unknown net fiscal effect.
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForCA Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPAs); CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; California Taxpayers Association (CalTax)
AgainstUS Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 147–150)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 61 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 60 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 59 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 58 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 147–150 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 58–59 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 9
42
Prohibits new state personal property taxes and certain retroactive state taxes.
State of California · Proposition 42
open
A YES vote meansThe state could not establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
A NO vote meansThe state would continue to have the option to establish new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10
What it doesProhibits new state taxes on personal property, including business interests, intellectual property, and financial assets (including assets in retirement and investment accounts). Prohibits new state taxes that apply retroactively based on the taxpayer’s conduct, activities, or a status that occurred before the new tax’s effective date.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 62
TodayCertain Personal Property Is Taxed in California. Both the state and local governments tax the ownership of certain personal property. These taxes are based on the property’s value. Personal property is all the things that people own other than real estate. One example of these kinds of taxes is the vehicle license fee that car and truck owners pay to the Department of Motor Vehicles each year. Another example is the property taxes owners of business equipment pay to the county each year.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 62–63
What changesProhibits New Taxes on Financial Assets or Other Personal Property. Under Proposition 42, new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property would not be allowed. Limits Retroactive Taxes. Proposition 42 limits the situations that a ballot measure or the Legislature can raise any tax retroactively.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 62–63
Fiscal effectPossibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 62
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForCA Professional Firefighters; State Building & Construction Trades Council of CA; AMVETS Department of CA
AgainstUS Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 150–153)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 65 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 64 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 63 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 62 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 150–153 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 62–63 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10
43
Limits voters’ ability to raise revenues for local government services.
State of California · Proposition 43
open
A YES vote meansCertain local government taxes would require two-thirds approval by voters.
A NO vote meansCertain local government taxes could continue to be approved by voters with a majority vote.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10
What it doesCurrently, local governments must obtain two-thirds voter approval to impose, extend, or increase special taxes (taxes dedicated to a specific purpose) that they place on the ballot. However, this two-thirds vote requirement does not currently apply to special taxes put on ballot by voter signature gathering.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 66
TodayLocal Governments in California. California has many local governments. These include cities, counties, special districts, and school districts. Vote Thresholds for Local Taxes. The State Constitution allows local governments to increase taxes with local voter approval. Tax increases can be put on a ballot by voters or a local governing board (such as a city council or board of supervisors).
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 67
What changesRequires Certain Local Taxes Receive Two-Thirds Approval by Voters. Under current law, local taxes that are used for a specific purpose require a two-thirds vote to be approved. These are called special taxes. However, recent court decisions have allowed For the full text of Proposition 43, see page 153. special taxes that are proposed by voters to be approved with a majority vote. Under Proposition 43, beginning on January 1, 2027, any new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by voters would require a two-thirds vote.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 67
Fiscal effectPossibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 66
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForCalifornia Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
AgainstCalifornia Professional Firefighters; California Federation of Teachers; Nurse Alliance of SEIU CA.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10
Read the measure · the official text (p. 153)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 69 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 68 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 66 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 153 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 67 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 10
44
Requires community health clinics spend 90% of revenue on program services.
State of California · Proposition 44
open
A YES vote meansCertain 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 meansThe new requirement on health care clinic spending would not go into effect.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11
What it doesImposes 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. Department of Public Health may waive spending requirements in exceptional circumstances.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 70
TodaySafety Net Clinics Serve Low-Income People. Clinics are places where people can access certain health care services, such as doctor’s visits. Many clinics are considered “safety net,” as they mainly serve low-income and uninsured people. The care they provide is often low cost or free to patients. There are about 2,000 safety net clinics in California. Most are private nonprofits, and the rest are run by public entities (such as counties).
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 70–71
What changesSets Minimum Spending on Health Care at Private Nonprofit Safety Net Clinics. Proposition 44 requires private nonprofit safety net clinics to spend at least 90 percent of their total revenue each year on providing health care services. This means that spending on other expenses, such as administrative costs, would be limited to no more than 10 percent of revenue.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 70–71
Fiscal effectIncreased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year to enforce the new requirements on certain private nonprofit health care clinics, covered by fees charged to the affected clinics.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 70
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForNone submitted
AgainstAmerican Academy of Pediatrics CA; CA School Nurses Org; CA Academy of Family Physicians; CA Medical Assoc.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 153–157)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 73 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 72 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 70 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 153–157 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 70–71 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11
45
Modifies environmental review for certain projects.
State of California · Proposition 45
open
A YES vote meansCertain 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 meansPublic and private projects would continue to use existing project review and court challenge procedures.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11
What it doesAmends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for specified project categories (including most housing, transportation, water, health, wildfire mitigation, educational facility, internet access, and clean energy projects). For these types of projects, this measure: Sets deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 74
TodayState Law Requires Government Agencies to Review the Environmental Impacts of Proposed Projects. State and local government agencies are responsible for reviewing and approving certain projects before they can be built. As part of this 45 process, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an agency to consider how a project might negatively affect the environment before approving it.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 74–77
What changesProposition 45 creates new procedures for reviewing certain types of projects that it defines as “essential.” Figure 1 lists the types of projects eligible for the new procedures. The proposition (1) tightens time limits for CEQA review, permits, and court challenges; (2) changes parts of the CEQA review process; and (3) changes the court’s review process for CEQA lawsuits.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 74–77
Fiscal effectInitial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually—potentially exceeding $100 million annually—to implement new project review and court challenge procedures for eligible projects.
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 74
Passes with
A majority (more than 50%)
Passes with: Our wording, from the kind of measure.
ForCalifornia Children’s Hospital Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing
AgainstCoalition for Clean Air; CA Environmental Voters; Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA; National Wildlife Federation
Source: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11
Read the measure · the official text (pp. 157–173)
Sources: Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 79 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 78 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 74 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 157–173 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, pp. 74–77 · Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide, p. 11
Who's running

The people on your ballot

The statewide offices are on every California ballot; their candidates are the same everywhere in the state (cited here to the Secretary of State's Certified List of Candidates, in the list's own order, not your ballot's). Congressional and legislative seats depend on your address: your sample ballot has yours.

Statewide
Governor
Xavier Becerra (Democratic)Steve Hilton (Republican)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2
Statewide
Lieutenant Governor
Fiona Ma (Democratic)Gloria Romero (Republican)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2
Statewide
Secretary of State
Shirley N. Weber (Democratic)Donald P. (Don) Wagner (Republican)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2
Statewide
Controller
Malia M. Cohen (Democratic)Herb W Morgan (Republican)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2
Statewide
Treasurer
Eleni Kounalakis (Democratic)Jennifer Hawks (Republican)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 2
Statewide
Attorney General
Rob Bonta (Democratic)Michael E. Gates (Republican)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 3
Statewide
Insurance Commissioner
Ben Allen (Democratic)Jane Kim (Democratic)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 3
Statewide
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Richard Barrera (State Superintendent Advisor)Sonja Shaw (School District President)
Source: California Secretary of State, Certified List of Candidates, p. 3

San Francisco's local contests are not here yet: they are being brought in by hand from the Department of Elections. San Francisco Department of Elections.

How to vote

The official pages

Where and when to vote, and your own sample ballot, are the elections office's to say. These are its pages.

1
San Francisco Department of Elections
Polling places and your sample ballot. Open the page.
2
Where's My Ballot
The Secretary of State's ballot tracking: when your ballot is mailed, received and counted. Open the page.
3
California Secretary of State, Elections
Registration and the statewide dates. Open the page.
Why we made this

Keep your whole ballot in one place.

This page is the public version. Inside WayVote, each measure is a card you can decide on. Your choices are saved.

Join the betaSee the Department of Elections