Know Before You Vote: Propositions 1-3
By Engage Tuolumne
Published: August 7, 2026
Last updated: August 6, 2026
Your Guide to California’s November 3 Ballot Propositions
In a series of articles over the next three months, Engage Tuolumne will publish information about the 14 Propositions appearing on the November 3 ballot.
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
Sources
- California Secretary of State (Official Voter Guide available September 2026).
- CalMatters Proposition Guide.
- Ballotpedia.
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
Sources
- California Secretary of State (Official Voter Guide available September 2026).
- CalMatters Proposition Guide.
- Ballotpedia.
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
Sources