Know Before You Vote: All California Propositions

By Engage Tuolumne
Published: October 9, 2026
Last updated: October 8, 2026
Share:

Your Guide to California’s November 3 Ballot Propositions

In a series of articles, Engage Tuolumne has published information about the 14 Propositions appearing on the November 3 ballot.

Register to vote or check your registration status (address, party affiliation, or name) at this link: https://registertovote.ca.gov/.

Proposition 1: General Obligation Bond for Housing Affordability Programs

 What it does

  • Authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds to replenish funding for existing programs, with costs repaid over time from the state’s General Fund. 
  • About $10 billion would fund affordable rental housing and home ownership programs. 
  • About $1.25 billion would fund housing programs for veterans.

What it doesn’t do

  • Does not increase taxes, but bond repayment comes from tax revenue.

Arguments in favor

  • Increases affordable housing construction. 
  • Helps reduce homelessness. 
  • Expands housing opportunities for veterans. 

A YES vote means California would issue $11.25 billion in bonds for affordable housing and veterans housing programs.

Arguments against

  • Adds billions to state debt. 
  • Interest costs increase the total amount taxpayers repay. 
  • Whether previous housing bonds have been effective. 

A NO vote means bonds would not be issued, and current housing funding would remain in place.

Who supports it

  • Gov. Gavin Newsom
  • Democratic Party of California 
  • United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 
  • ACLU California Action 
  • California Apartment Association 
  • California Housing Consortium 
  • Disability Rights California 
  • Drug Policy Alliance 
  • Evolve California 
  • League of California Cities 
  • NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference 
  • U.S. Vets
  • California Federation of Teachers 
  • Self-Help for the Elderly
  • Habitat for Humanity CA
  • CA Alliance of Child & Family Services

 Who opposes it

  • State Assemblyperson for Tuolumne County  David Tangipa (R) 
  • Reform California

Proposition 2: Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

 What it does

  • Increases the constitutional limit on deposits into California’s Budget Stabilization Account (“Rainy Day Fund”).
  • Raises the annual cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues under certain conditions.

What it doesn’t do

  • Does not increase taxes.
  • Does not automatically cut spending.
  • Does not require the state to save 20% every year.

Arguments in favor

  • Better prepares California for economic downturns.
  • May reduce the need for emergency spending cuts.

A YES vote means the state could save more money during strong economic years.

Arguments against

  • Could tie up money that might otherwise fund current programs.
  • Critics argue California already has significant reserves.

A NO vote means current constitutional limits on Rainy Day Fund deposits remain unchanged.

Who supports it

  • Governor Gavin Newsom
  • Democratic legislative leaders

Who opposes it

  • Legislative Republicans
  • Reform California
  • Some groups that prefer current funds be spent on services instead of savings

Proposition 3: Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment

 What it does

  • Makes permanent the voter-approved higher income tax rates on high-income earners scheduled to expire in 2031.
  • Revenue continues supporting K–12 schools and community colleges.

 What it doesn’t do

  • Does not increase income tax rates beyond current levels.
  • Does not affect most California taxpayers.

Arguments in favor

  • Provides stable education funding.
  • Prevents a future reduction in school revenue.

A YES vote means the higher tax rates on high-income earners remain permanent.

Arguments against

  • Keeps high-income tax rates in place permanently.
  • Critics argue California already has one of the nation’s highest income tax rates.

A NO vote means the higher rates expire in 2031 under current law.

Who supports it

  • California Teachers Association
  • California Federation of Teachers
  • California School Employees Association
  • Californians for Protecting Public Education, Health Care and Budget Stability
  • The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
  • California Professional Firefighters
  • California School Employees Association, California Teachers Association
  • Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

Who opposes it

  • California Taxpayer Association

Proposition 4: Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns. Legislative Statute

What it does

  • Repeals the current law that prohibits state and local governments from using public funds for election campaigns except in charter cities and counties.
  • Allows state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to specified spending limits and who meet eligibility criteria.
  • Prohibits these public funding programs from using funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.
  • Prohibits candidates from using public funds for legal defense costs, fines, or repayment of personal loans to campaigns. 
  • Triples the maximum fine for campaign contributions by foreign entities.

What it does not do

  • Does not automatically create a statewide public financing system.
  • Does not require candidates to participate.
  • Does not eliminate private campaign contributions.

Arguments in favor

  • Encourages candidates without wealthy donors.
  • May reduce special-interest influence.
  • Diversifies the field of candidates, giving voters more choice.
  • Allows candidates to focus more on voter appeal instead of donor appeal.

A YES vote means repealing the 1988 ban on public campaign financing and allowing state and local governments to create programs that provide candidates with public funds under spending limits and eligibility rules.

Arguments against

  • Uses public funds for campaign financing.
  • Its effectiveness is debatable.

A NO vote means preserving the ban on using public funds for election campaigns, keeping the prohibition in place with the existing exemption for charter cities.

Who supports it?

  • California Democratic Party
  • California Working Families Party
  • ACLU of California
  • California Clean Money Action Fund
  • California Common Cause
  • End Citizens United
  • League of Women Voters of California
  • Represent.Us
  • Consumer Watchdog

Who opposes it?

  •  California Taxpayers Association
  •  Reform California

Proposition 5: Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

What it does

  • Changes California’s recall process for statewide elected officials by holding a separate election for the seat of a recalled official rather than choosing a potential replacement on the same ballot as the recall, which is now the case.
  • An exception: If the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the term or until a successor is elected.
  • For all other recalled officials, the office will remain vacant until filled by a subsequent special election or appointment as specified in existing law.
  • A recalled official may run in a special election to fill the office.

What it does not do

  •  Does not eliminate recalls.
  • Does not make recalling officials easier or harder.
  • Does not affect local recall rules.

Arguments in favor

  • Creates a clearer election process.
  • Ensures voters elect successors separately.

A YES vote means eliminating the simultaneous election of a successor when a state official is recalled, allowing a recalled officer to run again for the same office at a special election, and authorizing the Lieutenant Governor to fill a gubernatorial vacancy until the term expires, with exceptions.

Please put Arguments Against and A No Vote in a box.

Arguments against

  • Could require an additional statewide election.
  • May increase election costs.

A NO vote maintains the requirement that a simultaneous election to fill a statewide office vacancy be held at the time of the recall election. The current recall system stays in place.

Who supports it?

  • Democratic Party of California
  • California Common Cause
  • League of Women Voters of California

Who opposes it?

  • Election Integrity Project California, Inc.
  • Reform California

Proposition 37: Create Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes.  Initiative Statute

 What it does

  • Creates a down payment assistance program under the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to help first-time home buyers qualify for mortgages. Authorizes 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).
  • Borrowers must be California residents for at least one year, occupy the home, earn less than twice the area’s median income, and pay at least 3% down.
  • Requires homeowners to repay bonds through mortgage payments, not the State.
  • The State would receive a share of ownership in the qualified home in return for contributing money toward the loan.
  • Establishes rules for repayment when the home is sold or refinanced. 

What it doesn’t do

  • Does not forgive mortgages.
  • Does not guarantee that every applicant will qualify.
  • Does not eliminate existing first-time homebuyer programs.

Arguments in favor

  • Makes homeownership more attainable.
  • Helps first-time buyers compete in expensive housing markets.
  • Builds more homes and creates good jobs.

A YES vote means: California would establish a shared-equity mortgage assistance program for eligible home buyers.

Arguments against

  • State government should not be involved in the mortgage lending market.
  • Does not increase the housing supply.
  • Critics question long-term costs.

A NO vote means: No new statewide shared-equity mortgage assistance program would be created.

Who supports it

  • California Democratic Party
  • Xavier Becerra
  • California Association of Realtors
  • California Conference of Carpenters
  • California Coalition of Homeownership

Who opposes it

  •  Reform California

Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.

What it does

  • Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and Immunotherapy research (technologies that use a body’s immune system to treat disease), with half dedicated to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.
  • Allocates funds equally between a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute and research grants for public or nonprofit universities and institutions.
  • Requires funding recipients to sell technology and drugs derived from research in California for 20% below the national average price.
  • Appropriates money from the General Fund to repay bonds, with the General Fund to receive 10% of licensing royalties until bonds are repaid.
  • Continues funding for research into treatment for diseases and injuries.

What it doesn’t do

  • Does not guarantee medical breakthroughs.
  • Does not directly change health insurance coverage.
  • Does not raise taxes directly, although bonds are repaid with state revenues.

Arguments in favor

  • Supports research into serious diseases.
  • Helps maintain California’s biotechnology leadership.
  • May create research and healthcare jobs.

A YES vote means: California would issue bonds to continue funding medical research.

Arguments against

  • Adds to state debt
  • Research outcomes are uncertain.
  • Interest costs increase total taxpayer expense.  
  • A CalMatters analysis shows that the ballot language criteria were tailored in a way that very likely excludes all but one institute in the entire state: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose prominent donor and co-founder is the chief backer of the proposition. The analysis raises the question of why the framers took such care to construct a highly specific set of criteria that seemingly points to a single eligible institute without naming it in the bond (2).

A NO vote means: The additional bond funding would not be authorized.

Who supports it

  • YES on the California Immunology Research & Cures Initiative 
  • ALS Association
  • Alzheimer’s Association
  • American Nurses Association of California
  • California Black Health Network 
  • Michelson Center for Public Policy
  • Parkinson Association of Northern California 
  • Reform California
  • Democratic Party of California

Who opposes it

  • Some taxpayer advocacy organizations
  • Fiscal conservatives

Proposition 39: Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-issued Identification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

 What it does

  • Prohibits voting by mail unless a voter designates a government-issued identification number for their voter registration.
  • Invalidates mail ballots if envelope does not include last four digits of a government-issued identification number matching the number designated in the voter’s registration (e.g., if a voter designates a Social Security number for registration, but provides a driver’s license number on the envelope, their ballot would not count).
  • Prohibits voting in person without presenting government-issued identification.
  • Requires elections officials to annually report the percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship status they have verified.
  • Establishes acceptable forms of voter ID and procedures for voters without identification.

 What it doesn’t do

  • Does not change voter registration requirements.
  • Does not automatically prevent eligible voters from voting if they meet alternative procedures.
  • Does not affect citizenship requirements for voting.

Arguments in favor

  • Standardizes voter verification.
  • Supporters say it improves election security.
  • Voter ID increases confidence in elections and helps prevent voter fraud.
  • Many other states have similar requirements.

A YES vote means: California would require voter identification for most in-person voting.

Arguments against

  • May create barriers for voters without qualifying identification.
  • May make it harder for eligible voters without a driver’s license or other supporting documents to vote.
  • Will disproportionately affect those with disabilities, who are low-income, or have recently moved. 
  • Could expose voters’ sensitive personal information.
  • Would create new ways to reject eligible ballots.
  • Wrongly target voters through error-prone citizenship checks.
  • Implementing new voting requirements would cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

A NO vote means: California’s current voter identification rules remain in effect.

Who supports it

  • Californians for Voter ID
  • California Republican Party
  • Reform California

Who opposes it

  • Democratic Party of California 
  • Common Cause
  • League of Women Voters of California
  • California Nurses Association
  • California School Employees Association
  • California Teachers Association
  • SEIU California State Council
  • ACLU of Northern California
  • ACLU of Southern California
  • Asian Law Caucus
  • California Donor Table
  • Courage California
  • Disability Rights California
  • Equality California
  • Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Proposition 40: Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

What it does

  • Imposes a one-time wealth tax on billionaires of up to five percent of covered assets, including their businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, but excluding real property and some pensions and retirement accounts.
  • Provides a temporary revenue increase of up to $100 billion spread over several years.
  • Allocates 90 percent of these tax revenues for health care,10 percent for food assistance and education-related programs, as well as the cost of administering the wealth tax.
  • Exempts such tax revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding, budget reserves, and the state spending limit.
  • Will not replace existing funding for health care, food assistance, and educational programs.

What it doesn’t do

  • Will not include real estate or most pensions and retirement accounts.
  • Will not impose any extra tax on non-billionaires.
  • Won’t guarantee that California billionaires would not move out of state.
  • Won’t apply the wealth tax to a billionaire who moved out of California before January 2026.

Arguments in favor

  • Requires billionaires (who often pay less than their fair share of taxes) to contribute to state funding for low-income residents at risk of losing health care.
  • Levies a one-time five percent tax on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion to fund state health care programs, food assistance programs, and education programs.
  • The five percent one-time tax will be levied on billionaires’ assets, generally excluding retirement accounts and pensions.
  • The State will receive tens of billions of dollars for health care, food assistance, and education-related programs for low-income residents.

A YES vote means the five percent one-time tax will be levied on billionaires’ assets, generally excluding retirement accounts and pensions.

Arguments against

  • Since the legislature can amend this proposition, it could expand the tax to everyone.
  • Long-term growth is at risk because billionaires might leave the state.
  • Some progressive groups, like Planned Parenthood, feel it is poorly written and will succumb to court challenges.
  • There will be no one-time tax on California billionaires.

A NO vote means there will be no one-time tax on California billionaires.

Who supports it

  • Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West
  • Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
  • Teamsters California
  • AFSCME California
  • California Democratic Party

Who opposes it

PROPOSITION 41: Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

What it does

  • Prohibits any new state taxes that exclude their revenues from the state spending limit approved by voters in 1979, viz. Prop 40’s billionaires’ tax.
  • Requires a pre-election audit of programs that would receive funding from a voter-proposed special tax and recurring audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026.
  • Intends to nullify Prop 40 if measure receives more “yes” votes than Prop 40.

What it doesn’t do

  • Implement any taxes.
  • Affect the passage or elements of Proposition 40, the so-called “wealth tax.”

Arguments in favor

  • Requires more accountability, transparency, and trackable progress of tax-funded programs.
  • Places audit requirements on new state special taxes in the future, offering better oversight.
  • If Proposition 41 receives more “yes” votes than Proposition 40 on this same ballot, then Proposition 40, even with a majority of “yes” votes, could be stopped from becoming law because the courts could find that Proposition 41 conflicts with Proposition 40.
  • Any future tax initiative on the ballot must undergo an audit prior to the election and ongoing audits if the initiative passes.
  • Any new taxes levied by the initiative process cannot be excluded from the voter-approved state spending limit.

A YES vote means:

  • If Proposition 41 receives more “yes” votes than Proposition 40 on this same ballot, then Proposition 40, even with a majority of “yes” votes, could be stopped from becoming law because the courts could find that Proposition 41 conflicts with Proposition 40.
  • Any future tax initiative on the ballot must undergo an audit prior to the election, and
  • ongoing audits if the initiative passes.
  • Any new taxes levied by the initiative process cannot be excluded from the voter-
  • approved state spending limit.

Arguments against

  • Designed specifically to nullify Proposition 40.
  • Places cumbersome and expensive requirements of pre-election audits on programs that would receive funding from a tax measure; the tax measure may not pass, and the time and money spent on the pre-election audit would have been wasted.
  • Billionaires are funding Prop 41. Supporters have donated over $58 million.
  • There will be no requirement for pre-election audits for future tax initiatives.
  • There will be no interaction with Prop 40 which will prevail if it wins a majority of votes.
  • New state taxes, such as the one-time billionaires’ tax, could be excluded from the state spending limit.

A NO vote means:

  • There will be no requirement for pre-election audits for future tax initiatives.
  • There will be no interaction with Prop 40 which will prevail if it wins a majority of votes.
  • New state taxes, such as the one-time billionaires’ tax, could be excluded from the state spending limit.

Who supports it

  • Sergey Brin, billionaire Google Co-founder
  • Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government
  • Robert Gutierrez, California Taxpayers Association
  • Building a Better California
  • Stewart Resnick, Chairman and CEO of Wonderful Company Foods
  • Reform California, Carl DeMaio

Who opposes it

  • SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
  • California Democratic Party

PROPOSITION 42: Prohibit the Enactment of New Taxes After January 1, 2026 on Ownership or Accumulation of Retirement Holdings, Individually Owned Assets, and Other Forms of Personal Savings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

What it does

  • Prohibits taxes on billionaires’ personal property and financial assets like investment accounts and retirement accounts which currently are only taxed when sold. This would make it impossible to establish a wealth tax.
  • Restricts the imposition of retroactive taxes.
  • May nullify Proposition 40, the wealth tax on billionaires’ assets.

What it doesn’t do

  • Will not implement any taxes.
  • Will not tax the retirement accounts or personal savings of anyone who is not a billionaire as of January 1, 2026.

Arguments in favor

  • Unrealized gains (art that hasn’t been sold, retirement accounts that haven’t been withdrawn, investments that haven’t been sold) would be unfairly taxed and would set a precedent for taxing the assets of all Californians, regardless of their finances.
  • No billionaires will be subject to taxes on their assets. There will be no one-time “wealth tax.”
  • Prohibits retroactive taxes on billionaire status that occurred prior to January 1, 2026.
  • It could nullify Prop 40.

A YES vote means:

  • No billionaires will be subject to taxes on their assets. There will be no one-time “wealth tax.”
  • Prohibits retroactive taxes on billionaire status that occurred prior to January 1, 2026.
  • It could nullify Prop. 40. If Proposition 42 receives more “yes” votes than Proposition 40 on this same ballot, then Proposition 40, even if it passes, could be stopped from becoming law because the courts could find that Proposition 42 conflicts with Proposition 40.

Arguments against

  • Designed specifically to nullify Proposition 40.
  • Intended to trick voters into believing that average earners will also be subject to taxes on their modest assets, thereby letting billionaires off the hook.
  • $59 million has been spent, mostly by billionaires, to support it.
  • Billionaires could have a one-time five percent tax on their assets if Prop 40 passes with the State realizing up to a $100 billion windfall for citizens’ health care.

A NO vote means billionaires could have a one-time five percent tax on their assets if Prop 40 passes with the State realizing up to a $100 billion windfall for citizens’ health care.

Who supports it

  • Sergey Brin, billionaire Google Co-founder
  • Protect Retirement and Life Savings
  • Building a Better California
  • California Taxpayers Association
  • California Small Business Association
  • Reform California
  • Peace Officers Research Association of California

Who opposes it

  • SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
  • California Democratic Party

Proposition 43: Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenue for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

What it does

  • Currently, local governments generally need two-thirds voter approval to impose, extend, or increase special taxes—taxes dedicated to a specific purpose. However, this two-thirds requirement does not currently apply to special taxes proposed through voter signature gathering.
  • Proposition 43 would change that by increasing the approval threshold for voter-proposed local special taxes from a simple majority (over 50%) to two-thirds.
  • The change would apply to voter-proposed local special-tax measures approved beginning January 1, 2027.

What it doesn’t do

  • It would not allow voter-proposed special taxes to continue passing with a simple majority.
  • It would not create a new, more flexible path for local voters to approve funding for services such as law enforcement, fire protection, roads, and other local priorities.
  • The Legislative Analyst’s Office says the measure could result in lower local government tax revenues in the future, although the actual impact would depend on future decisions by voters and local governments.

Arguments in favor

  • Makes it harder for local officials and special interests to raise taxes by restoring a two-thirds vote requirement for voter-proposed local special taxes.
  • Closes what supporters describe as loopholes in Proposition 13 that allow certain local tax increases to pass without the two-thirds threshold.
  • Protects taxpayers by applying the two-thirds requirement to local special taxes, including certain sales, property, utility, and other taxes.
  • Prevents special taxes from passing with a simple majority during lower-turnout elections.

A YES vote means voter-proposed local special taxes would need approval from two-thirds (66.67%) of voters to take effect.

Arguments against

  • The measure could make it harder for communities to raise revenue needed for local services.
  • A higher threshold could make it easier for well-funded interests to block tax measures supported by a majority of voters.
  • The measure would not directly lower existing local taxes, but would raise the number of votes needed for certain voter-proposed tax measures to pass.

A NO vote means certain voter-proposed local special taxes could continue to be approved by a simple majority.

Who supports it

  • California Taxpayers Association
  • Family Business Association of California
  • California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
  • California Small Business Association

Who opposes it

  • Xavier Becerra, former United States Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Democratic Party of California
  • California Democratic Socialists of America
  • Evolve California
  • League of Women Voters of California
  • California Labor Federation
  • League of California Cities
  • California Federation of Teachers
  • California Special Districts Association
  • California State Association Counties

Proposition 44: Requires Community Health Clinics to Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.

What it does

  • Requires nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics that provide primary care to medically underserved communities) to spend at least 90% of their revenue on “program services” that advance their charitable purpose, including but not limited to direct patient services.
  • Gives the Attorney General authority to issue guidance explaining which expenses qualify as “program services.”
  • Allows monetary penalties to potentially be refunded if a clinic becomes compliant within five years.
  • Allows criminal charges for submitting false reports or intentionally manipulating spending calculations to meet the 90% requirement.

What it doesn’t do

  • Does not allow community clinics to spend more than 10% of their revenue on expenses that may not qualify as “program services,” including certain administrative costs.
  • Does not specifically provide additional funding to strengthen the healthcare workforce, recruit and retain employees, expand services, or invest in the infrastructure needed to deliver modern healthcare.
  • Does not directly address the financial stability of community clinics, which could affect their ability to maintain or expand care.
  • Does not establish a specific cap on CEO salaries.

Arguments in favor

  • Gives the Attorney General authority to clearly define which expenses qualify as program services.
  • Helps redirect what supporters consider excessive overhead and executive spending toward patient care and other healthcare services.
  • Generally limits spending outside qualifying program services to the remaining 10% of revenue.
  • Requires clinics that fall below the 90% threshold to pay a penalty, while allowing that penalty to potentially be refunded if the clinic becomes compliant within five years.

A YES vote means affected community health clinics would be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare and other qualifying program services.

Arguments against

  • Penalizes clinics for spending money on important services and investments, including staffing, transportation, telemedicine, employee training, medical technology, and infrastructure such as mammography, CT, and X-ray equipment. They also point to expenses involved in building new clinics or expanding existing locations, as well as building rent and leases.
  • Gives the State Attorney General—an elected official who may not have healthcare experience—significant authority over which types of healthcare-related spending qualify under the measure.
  • Adds another layer of requirements to community health clinics that are already subject to extensive federal and state regulations, spending requirements, audits, and reporting.

A NO vote means affected clinics would not be required to spend at least 90% of their revenue on healthcare and other qualifying program services.

Who supports it

  • California League of United Latin American Citizens
  • NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference
  • California Taxpayers Association
  • Environmental Policy Innovation Center
  • Committee to Build an Affordable California
  • American Clean Power—California

Who opposes it

  • American Academy of Pediatrics, California
  • California School Nurses Organization
  • California Medical Association
  • California Primary Care Association
  • American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, District IX
  • Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
  • National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
  • American College of Emergency Physicians, California
  • California Academy of Family Physicians
  • California Democratic PartyOne name/organization per line

Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.

What it does

  • Amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to speed up environmental review for certain types of projects, including many housing, transportation, water, healthcare, wildfire prevention, education, internet access, and clean-energy projects.
  • Sets specific deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental reviews and take required actions.
  • Creates an expedited environmental-review process that limits some of the current requirements for agencies to consider different feasible alternatives for reducing a project’s environmental impacts.
  • Establishes deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits challenging project approvals.
  • Requires agencies and project applicants to consult about the project only with California Native American tribes that are formally recognized by the federal government.
  • Limits the amount of time agencies can accept comments from the public and other government agencies about a project.
  • Allows courts to stop only the portion of a project affected by a CEQA violation while the agency works to correct the problem.

What it doesn’t do

  • Does not completely exempt covered projects from environmental review. Eligible projects would still be reviewed under CEQA, but through modified procedures and tighter deadlines.
  • Does not automatically approve a project. Cities and counties would continue to have the authority to approve or deny projects.
  • Does not require developers to build any particular project. It creates an optional expedited process for eligible applicants, who could choose either the new procedures or the existing process.
  • Does not guarantee that housing, electricity, water, or other costs will decrease.
  • Does not eliminate all environmental laws or regulations.
  • Does not prevent people or organizations from challenging projects in court.

Arguments in favor

  • Speeds up development while maintaining important environmental protections.
  • Helps address California’s high cost of living by making it faster and potentially less expensive to build essential projects, including water-supply and water-quality projects, hospitals and healthcare facilities, wildfire-prevention projects, schools and classrooms, roads, bridges and public transit, clean-energy projects, and electric-grid infrastructure.
  • Requires agencies to identify the information they need when an application is submitted and establish clearer, more binding timelines.
  • Sets deadlines for courts to resolve CEQA challenges and limit what courts can consider in certain cases.

A YES vote means Eligible projects would have access to a faster environmental-review process and a streamlined process for resolving court challenges instead of following the existing CEQA process.

Arguments against

  • Opponents argue that Proposition 45 would weaken California’s environmental review law, which is intended to protect communities and the environment from potentially harmful development. They argue that:
  • The long-term financial effects are uncertain. Faster construction could lower project costs, but projects that cause environmental harm could create additional costs for governments and communities.
  • The measure could reduce the tools available to public agencies to identify and address potential environmental and community impacts.
  • Changes to the review and litigation process could lead to more costly disputes and make it more difficult for agencies to enforce CEQA requirements.
  • Some long-term costs of inadequate planning could ultimately fall on public agencies and taxpayers.

A NO vote means Proposition 45 would not become law, and the current CEQA environmental-review and court-challenge procedures would remain in place.

Who supports it

  • California League of United Latin American Citizens
  • NAACP California/Hawaii State Conference
  • California Taxpayers Association
  • Environmental Policy Innovation Center
  • Committee to Build an Affordable California
  • American Clean Power—California

Who opposes it

  • National Wildlife Federation
  • California Communities Against Toxics
  • California Environmental Voters
  • California Environmental Justice Alliance
  • California Nurses for Environmental Health & Justice
  • Clean Water Action
  • Coalition for Clean Air
  • Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles
  • People Over Polluters
  • Sierra Club of California

Sources (all propositions)

  1. California General Election November 3, 2026: Official voter Information Guide, California Secretary of State.
  2. 2026 Voter Guide: Propositions, CalMatters.
  3. California 2026 Ballot Propositions, Ballotpedia.