California November 2026 Ballot Propositions
Election Date: November 3, 2026
Sources: California Secretary of State, CalMatters, Ballotpedia, PPIC, Legislative Analyst’s Office
Election Date: November 3, 2026
Sources: California Secretary of State, CalMatters, Ballotpedia, PPIC, Legislative Analyst’s Office
Overview
California voters will decide 14 statewide ballot measures on November 3, 2026. The ballot is dominated by a highstakes
tax conflict — a billionaire wealth tax and two billionaire-funded countermeasures — alongside two housing
bonds, CEQA reform, voter ID, and several election and governance changes. This analysis evaluates each proposition
through the lens of the RBCC 2026 Policy Platform and its five priority areas: Infrastructure, Utilities & Waterfront
Revitalization; Business Attraction, Retention & Economic Growth; Public Safety & Emergency Services; Public Health,
Housing & Homelessness; and Regional Innovation & Smart Cities.
For Redondo Beach specifically, the most consequential measures are those touching King Harbor and Waterfront
redevelopment timelines (Prop 45), workforce housing near the Waterfront, Riviera Village, and the Chamber’s
aerospace and healthcare employer base (Props 1 and 37), and the tax-policy fight over Prop 40 and its
countermeasures (Props 41 and 42), which bears directly on the investment climate around Redondo Beach’s largest
employers, including the Northrop Grumman Space Park campus
California voters will decide 14 statewide ballot measures on November 3, 2026. The ballot is dominated by a highstakes
tax conflict — a billionaire wealth tax and two billionaire-funded countermeasures — alongside two housing
bonds, CEQA reform, voter ID, and several election and governance changes. This analysis evaluates each proposition
through the lens of the RBCC 2026 Policy Platform and its five priority areas: Infrastructure, Utilities & Waterfront
Revitalization; Business Attraction, Retention & Economic Growth; Public Safety & Emergency Services; Public Health,
Housing & Homelessness; and Regional Innovation & Smart Cities.
For Redondo Beach specifically, the most consequential measures are those touching King Harbor and Waterfront
redevelopment timelines (Prop 45), workforce housing near the Waterfront, Riviera Village, and the Chamber’s
aerospace and healthcare employer base (Props 1 and 37), and the tax-policy fight over Prop 40 and its
countermeasures (Props 41 and 42), which bears directly on the investment climate around Redondo Beach’s largest
employers, including the Northrop Grumman Space Park campus
Proposition 1 — Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: ~$17.4B repayment over 30 yrs (~$580M/yr)
Summary
Authorizes the state to issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing and veterans’ housing
programs. Of the total, $10 billion funds affordable rental housing, homeownership programs, and subsidized housing
for farmworkers, seniors, college students, and people experiencing homelessness. The remaining $1.25 billion funds
the CalVet Home Loan Program, which provides veterans with mortgage assistance repaid through loan payments,
not taxpayer dollars.
Context
Placed on the ballot by Governor Newsom and legislative Democrats under SB 417 (Limón), this measure replaces the
funding capacity of the depleted 2018 housing bond. California faces a structural affordable housing shortage
estimated at over 2.5 million units. The bond would replenish programs including the Multifamily Housing Program,
CalHome, and the Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic state lawmakers, AFL-CIO California, California Apartment Association
Opponents: Republican state lawmakers
|
Arguments in Support
● Addresses a documented, urgent shortage of affordable housing with funding for programs that have demonstrated track records ● CalVet loans are self-repaying through veteran mortgages, making that $1.25 billion component essentially cost-free to taxpayers ● Supports tens of thousands of high-paying construction jobs ● Broad coalition backing from Governor Newsom, AFL-CIO California, and the California Apartment Association |
Arguments Against
● The $10 billion general obligation portion will cost an estimated $17.4 billion to repay over 30 years (~$580 million/yr in debt service) ● Republican legislators argue the state should address housing costs through regulatory reform rather than bond spending ● Affordable housing production has historically underperformed against bond targets, with funds spread thinly across many programs |
Proposition 2 — Save for California's Future Act
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Fiscally neutral (reserve mechanics)
Summary
A constitutional amendment that doubles the maximum annual deposit into California’s rainy day fund (Budget
Stabilization Account) from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues. It also forces larger deposits during capital-gains
boom years, extends the mandatory debt paydown requirement through 2039–40, and adds federal Unemployment
Insurance debt repayment as an eligible use of reserve funds. Reserve deposits are exempted from the Gann
spending limit until withdrawn.
Context
ACA 20 (Gabriel) was placed on the ballot by top Democratic leaders, including Governor Newsom, responding to
years of surplus-then-deficit budget volatility. California’s general fund is heavily dependent on high-income earners
and capital gains, making revenues highly cyclical. The state currently carries approximately $20 billion in federal
Unemployment Insurance debt accrued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office
(LAO) had recommended a 50% rainy day cap; this measure falls short of that recommendation.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Gov. Gavin Newsom, legislative Democrats
Opponents: Legislative Republicans
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Fiscally neutral (reserve mechanics)
Summary
A constitutional amendment that doubles the maximum annual deposit into California’s rainy day fund (Budget
Stabilization Account) from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues. It also forces larger deposits during capital-gains
boom years, extends the mandatory debt paydown requirement through 2039–40, and adds federal Unemployment
Insurance debt repayment as an eligible use of reserve funds. Reserve deposits are exempted from the Gann
spending limit until withdrawn.
Context
ACA 20 (Gabriel) was placed on the ballot by top Democratic leaders, including Governor Newsom, responding to
years of surplus-then-deficit budget volatility. California’s general fund is heavily dependent on high-income earners
and capital gains, making revenues highly cyclical. The state currently carries approximately $20 billion in federal
Unemployment Insurance debt accrued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office
(LAO) had recommended a 50% rainy day cap; this measure falls short of that recommendation.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Gov. Gavin Newsom, legislative Democrats
Opponents: Legislative Republicans
|
Arguments in Support
● The LAO estimates the measure would allow the state to cover about half of future budget shortfalls, versus about one-third under current rules ● Addresses the state’s structural vulnerability to revenue volatility driven by capital gains and highincome earners ● Helps pay down the $20 billion federal UI debt, reducing ongoing interest costs ● Broad bipartisan support for the concept of fiscal prudence |
Arguments Against
● The LAO itself noted the 20% cap falls short of its own recommendation, suggesting a compromise rather than an optimal solution ● Republican legislators opposed the measure, arguing it does not go far enough in structural fiscal reform ● Locking more money into reserves limits flexibility to address emergency spending needs ● Exempting reserve deposits from the Gann limit could be seen as circumventing voter-approved spending constraints |
Proposition 3 — Permanent High-Earner Income Tax for Schools and Healthcare
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: $5–$15B/yr revenue maintained
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment that makes permanent the top marginal income tax rates on highearning
Californians first approved in 2012 (Prop 30) and extended in 2016 (Prop 55). The rates — currently 10.3% to
12.3% on income above approximately $360,000 (single) / $721,000 (joint) — are set to expire in 2031; this measure
removes the expiration date. Revenue is allocated 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
Context
This is the third ballot measure related to this income tax. Prop 30 (2012) created it with 63% support; Prop 55 (2016)
extended it. The LAO estimates the measure maintains $5–$15 billion in annual state income tax revenues that would
otherwise expire in 2031.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees
Association
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: $5–$15B/yr revenue maintained
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment that makes permanent the top marginal income tax rates on highearning
Californians first approved in 2012 (Prop 30) and extended in 2016 (Prop 55). The rates — currently 10.3% to
12.3% on income above approximately $360,000 (single) / $721,000 (joint) — are set to expire in 2031; this measure
removes the expiration date. Revenue is allocated 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
Context
This is the third ballot measure related to this income tax. Prop 30 (2012) created it with 63% support; Prop 55 (2016)
extended it. The LAO estimates the measure maintains $5–$15 billion in annual state income tax revenues that would
otherwise expire in 2031.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees
Association
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association
|
Arguments in Support
● Prevents a $5–$15 billion annual revenue cliff that would force cuts to K-12, community colleges, and healthcare programs beginning in 2031 ● Maintained strong voter support in prior cycles — it does not raise taxes, only keeps existing rates in place ● California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, and California School Employees Association all support ● High earners already pay these rates; the only change is removing the sunset |
Arguments Against
● The California Taxpayers Association argues that making the tax permanent removes future democratic accountability and review ● Only about 40% of revenues typically reach K-14 education directly; the remainder flows to reserves and the general fund ● California already has the nation’s highest top marginal income tax rate; permanent extension discourages investment and high-income residency ● Revenues are more volatile than headline figures suggest, tied closely to capital gains |
Proposition 4 — California Fair Elections Act of 2026
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Modest, program-dependent
Summary
Lifts California’s 1988 ban on public financing for political campaigns, giving state and local governments the authority
to establish voluntary public campaign financing systems for candidates. Charter cities like San Francisco and Los
Angeles already operate such programs; this measure extends that authority statewide. Placed on the ballot by SB 42
(Umberg).
Context
California banned public campaign financing by initiative in 1988. Since then, Citizens United (2010) and the rise of
independent expenditures have transformed the campaign finance landscape. Several California cities have operated
public financing programs successfully for years. This measure does not mandate public financing — it only removes
the statewide prohibition.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters, ACLU California
Action
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Modest, program-dependent
Summary
Lifts California’s 1988 ban on public financing for political campaigns, giving state and local governments the authority
to establish voluntary public campaign financing systems for candidates. Charter cities like San Francisco and Los
Angeles already operate such programs; this measure extends that authority statewide. Placed on the ballot by SB 42
(Umberg).
Context
California banned public campaign financing by initiative in 1988. Since then, Citizens United (2010) and the rise of
independent expenditures have transformed the campaign finance landscape. Several California cities have operated
public financing programs successfully for years. This measure does not mandate public financing — it only removes
the statewide prohibition.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters, ACLU California
Action
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association
|
Arguments in Support
● Reduces the influence of large donors and special interests by enabling small-donor matching and voucher programs ● Already demonstrated to work in charter cities; allows the rest of the state to adopt similar models ● Supported by good-governance organizations including California Common Cause, League of Women Voters, and ACLU California Action ● Does not compel taxpayers to fund campaigns -- government entities must choose to establish programs |
Arguments Against
● The California Taxpayers Association objects to using public funds to finance political campaigns ● Even a voluntary program diverts tax dollars that could otherwise go to services ● Critics argue public financing programs can be gamed and may entrench incumbents or fund fringe candidates ● The measure’s permissive structure provides few guardrails on how local programs are designed |
Proposition 5 — Recall Election Reform
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Modest savings
Summary
Reforms the California recall process for state-level officers. Under current law, a recall ballot includes two questions:
whether to remove the official, and who should replace them. Under this measure, the recall ballot would only ask
whether to remove the official; if removed, the post would remain vacant until a separate special election, in which
the recalled official may run.
Context
SCA 1 (Newman) was placed on the ballot following the 2021 recall effort against Governor Newsom, which cost the
state an estimated $276 million. Critics argued the two-question format allowed a recalled governor to be replaced by
a candidate receiving only a small fraction of total votes.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, Secretary of State Shirley Weber
Opponents: Election Integrity Project California
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Modest savings
Summary
Reforms the California recall process for state-level officers. Under current law, a recall ballot includes two questions:
whether to remove the official, and who should replace them. Under this measure, the recall ballot would only ask
whether to remove the official; if removed, the post would remain vacant until a separate special election, in which
the recalled official may run.
Context
SCA 1 (Newman) was placed on the ballot following the 2021 recall effort against Governor Newsom, which cost the
state an estimated $276 million. Critics argued the two-question format allowed a recalled governor to be replaced by
a candidate receiving only a small fraction of total votes.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, Secretary of State Shirley Weber
Opponents: Election Integrity Project California
|
Arguments in Support
● Closes a structural flaw where a replacement with minority support could unseat an official who commanded majority support ● Allows the recalled official the democratic opportunity to seek re-election through the normal process ● Simplifies the ballot question voters face ● Supported by election integrity advocates including the League of Women Voters and Secretary of State Shirley Weber |
Arguments Against
● Leaving a top state office vacant between a recall and special election creates a governance gap, particularly in a crisis ● The Election Integrity Project California argues the current two-question format provides more immediate continuity ● Could reduce accountability by making it harder to effect immediate change through the recall process ● Some critics argue it benefits incumbent politicians at the expense of recall advocates |
Proposition 37 — Middle-Income Homebuyer Loan Program
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: No direct state cost (self-repaying)
Summary
Authorizes up to $25 billion in state revenue bonds to create a second-mortgage program for middle-income buyers
of newly constructed homes. Eligible buyers must earn less than 200% of area median income (roughly $213,000 for a
family of four in L.A. County) and provide at least 3% of their own funds as a down payment; the state lends the
remaining 17%. Bonds are repaid by homebuyers through mortgage payments, not state taxpayers.
Context
Championed by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, this measure targets the "missing middle" --
households who earn too much for affordable-housing subsidies but cannot accumulate a 20% down payment in
California’s high-cost market. Unlike Prop 1, it applies to new construction only, intentionally avoiding bidding up
existing home prices, and is designed to be self-funded through homebuyer repayments.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Bob Hertzberg, California Association of Realtors, Building a Better California, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters, Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
Opponents: No organized opposition registered as of reporting date
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: No direct state cost (self-repaying)
Summary
Authorizes up to $25 billion in state revenue bonds to create a second-mortgage program for middle-income buyers
of newly constructed homes. Eligible buyers must earn less than 200% of area median income (roughly $213,000 for a
family of four in L.A. County) and provide at least 3% of their own funds as a down payment; the state lends the
remaining 17%. Bonds are repaid by homebuyers through mortgage payments, not state taxpayers.
Context
Championed by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, this measure targets the "missing middle" --
households who earn too much for affordable-housing subsidies but cannot accumulate a 20% down payment in
California’s high-cost market. Unlike Prop 1, it applies to new construction only, intentionally avoiding bidding up
existing home prices, and is designed to be self-funded through homebuyer repayments.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Bob Hertzberg, California Association of Realtors, Building a Better California, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters, Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
Opponents: No organized opposition registered as of reporting date
|
Arguments in Support
● Costs the state nothing: all bonds repaid through homebuyer mortgages, not general fund dollars ● Focused on new construction, which increases housing supply rather than competing for existing units ● Broad coalition: California Association of Realtors, building trades unions, former legislative leaders ● Addresses a critical gap for middle-income households effectively locked out of homeownership in California |
Arguments Against
● Bundled builder-track provisions on labor standards and construction-defect rules are complex and could favor some developers ● The $25 billion in bonds still adds to the state’s overall debt obligations, even if self-repaying ● Income limits (200% of AMI) may be set too high, potentially benefiting households who could afford homes without assistance ● Housing affordability advocates argue the measure benefits buyers rather than the most severe affordability needs |
Proposition 38 — Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Bond
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: ~$500M/yr for ~25 years
Summary
Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at
preventing and curing cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, lupus, and other conditions. Funding is
split 50/50 between a University of California-affiliated nonprofit and competitive grants, with at least half directed to
cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s research specifically.
Context
Funded primarily by philanthropist Gary Michelson, the measure is positioned as a response to federal research
funding cuts and comes amid rapid advances in immunotherapy for cancer treatment.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Gary Michelson (philanthropist), ALS Association, Alzheimer’s Association, Blood Cancer United, UC
President
Opponents: Robert Kaplan (former NIH associate director)
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: ~$500M/yr for ~25 years
Summary
Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at
preventing and curing cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, ALS, lupus, and other conditions. Funding is
split 50/50 between a University of California-affiliated nonprofit and competitive grants, with at least half directed to
cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s research specifically.
Context
Funded primarily by philanthropist Gary Michelson, the measure is positioned as a response to federal research
funding cuts and comes amid rapid advances in immunotherapy for cancer treatment.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Gary Michelson (philanthropist), ALS Association, Alzheimer’s Association, Blood Cancer United, UC
President
Opponents: Robert Kaplan (former NIH associate director)
|
Arguments in Support
● Immunotherapy has produced breakthrough cancer treatments; California could lead next-generation research ● Explicit price-discount provision (20% below national average) intended to protect California patients from high treatment costs ● Strong accountability provisions: 2% admin cap, conflict-of-interest rules, independent audits, public disclosure ● Supported by disease advocacy organizations including the ALS Association, Alzheimer’s Association, and Blood Cancer United |
Arguments Against
● The $8.4 billion bond will cost roughly $500 million per year for 25 years, totaling an estimated $12–13 billion including interest ● Former NIH associate director Robert Kaplan has questioned whether a politically driven structure allocates funds as effectively as peer-review grants ● Half of all funds flow to a single UC-affiliated institute, raising governance concentration questions ● The pricing discount may be difficult to enforce and could reduce commercial interest in licensing resulting technologies |
Proposition 39 — Voter Identification Requirements
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Tens of millions/yr
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment that would require government-issued photo ID for in-person voting and
the last four digits of a government-issued ID number on mail ballots. Election officials would be required to provide
free voter ID cards on request, and counties would be required to report annually on the percentage of voters whose
citizenship has been verified.
Context
This measure arrives amid a national wave of voter ID legislation; California is one of the few large states without such
a requirement. The citizenship-verification provisions face potential legal challenges under the National Voter
Registration Act.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Reform California, Californians for Voter ID, Rep. Ken Calvert (R)
Opponents: League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action, California Donor Table
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Tens of millions/yr
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment that would require government-issued photo ID for in-person voting and
the last four digits of a government-issued ID number on mail ballots. Election officials would be required to provide
free voter ID cards on request, and counties would be required to report annually on the percentage of voters whose
citizenship has been verified.
Context
This measure arrives amid a national wave of voter ID legislation; California is one of the few large states without such
a requirement. The citizenship-verification provisions face potential legal challenges under the National Voter
Registration Act.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Reform California, Californians for Voter ID, Rep. Ken Calvert (R)
Opponents: League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action, California Donor Table
|
Arguments in Support
● Proponents argue voter ID is a fundamental safeguard against fraud and standard practice in most democratic nations ● The measure provides free ID cards, mitigating cost barriers for low-income voters ● Aligns California with the majority of U.S. states that have some form of voter ID law ● Supported by Reform California, Californians for Voter ID, and Rep. Ken Calvert |
Arguments Against
● The League of Women Voters, ACLU California Action, and California Donor Table argue it will disproportionately burden low-income voters, seniors, students, and communities of color ● The citizenship-verification provision faces likely federal preemption litigation under the National Voter Registration Act ● California’s existing no-excuse mail voting system has been highly successful; new requirements could suppress participation ● The LAO estimates ongoing costs in the tens of millions of dollars annually for ID programs and verification |
Proposition 40 — Billionaire Wealth Tax
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Tens of billions (short-term); ongoing income-tax revenue loss projected
Summary
The most controversial measure on the November ballot. Imposes a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California
residents with covered assets valued over $1 billion as of January 1, 2026. Covered assets include businesses,
securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, but exclude real property and most retirement accounts. The tax
would be paid over five years (1%/year). Revenue allocation: 90% to healthcare (primarily Medi-Cal), 10% to food
assistance or education.
Context
Sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which collected 1.6 million signatures, the measure faces fierce
opposition from prominent Democrats including Governor Newsom and Silicon Valley figures. It shares the ballot with
two countermeasures (Props 41 and 42) designed to nullify it — whichever measure receives more "yes" votes
prevails in case of direct conflict. The measure’s retroactive application is expected to face immediate legal
challenges.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, Teamsters California, AFSCME California, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I)
Opponents: Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Teachers Association, California Medical Association, California Primary
Care Association, Sergey Brin, Chris Larsen, California Chamber of Commerce
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Tens of billions (short-term); ongoing income-tax revenue loss projected
Summary
The most controversial measure on the November ballot. Imposes a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California
residents with covered assets valued over $1 billion as of January 1, 2026. Covered assets include businesses,
securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property, but exclude real property and most retirement accounts. The tax
would be paid over five years (1%/year). Revenue allocation: 90% to healthcare (primarily Medi-Cal), 10% to food
assistance or education.
Context
Sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which collected 1.6 million signatures, the measure faces fierce
opposition from prominent Democrats including Governor Newsom and Silicon Valley figures. It shares the ballot with
two countermeasures (Props 41 and 42) designed to nullify it — whichever measure receives more "yes" votes
prevails in case of direct conflict. The measure’s retroactive application is expected to face immediate legal
challenges.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, Teamsters California, AFSCME California, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I)
Opponents: Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Teachers Association, California Medical Association, California Primary
Care Association, Sergey Brin, Chris Larsen, California Chamber of Commerce
|
Arguments in Support
● Generates tens of billions of dollars to fund healthcare for low-income Californians amid severe federal Medicaid cuts ● Only approximately 200 California billionaires would be directly affected ● Backed by SEIU-UHW, Teamsters California, AFSCME California, and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders ● California billionaires have seen extraordinary wealth accumulation while the state faces healthcare funding shortfalls |
Arguments Against
● Governor Newsom, the California Teachers Association, California Medical Association, and California Primary Care Association all oppose — a coalition crossing partisan and institutional lines ● The LAO projects a likely permanent decrease in income tax revenues of hundreds of millions annually as wealthy individuals change behavior or leave the state ● The retroactive nature of the tax faces credible constitutional challenges ● Silicon Valley leaders including Sergey Brin and Chris Larsen argue the measure could accelerate capital and talent flight from California |
Proposition 41 — Tax Audit and Spending Limit Compliance
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Blocks Prop 40 mechanics
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment with two main provisions: first, it requires mandatory audits of
programs funded by new state special taxes; second — more consequentially — it prohibits any new state tax
enacted after January 1, 2026 from being excluded from the existing Gann spending limit, including any tax appearing
on the same ballot. This second provision is specifically designed to neutralize Prop 40’s Gann exemption.
Context
Funded primarily by Building a Better California (Sergey Brin, John Doerr, Michael Moritz), with support from the
California Chamber of Commerce and Reform California. The relationship between Props 40, 41, and 42 is the defining
dynamic of the 2026 ballot: if Props 41 or 42 each receive more "yes" votes than Prop 40, they prevail in case of
conflict and effectively nullify the wealth tax.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Building a Better California (Sergey Brin, John Doerr, Michael Moritz), California Chamber of Commerce,
Reform California
Opponents: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Prop 40 proponents
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Blocks Prop 40 mechanics
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment with two main provisions: first, it requires mandatory audits of
programs funded by new state special taxes; second — more consequentially — it prohibits any new state tax
enacted after January 1, 2026 from being excluded from the existing Gann spending limit, including any tax appearing
on the same ballot. This second provision is specifically designed to neutralize Prop 40’s Gann exemption.
Context
Funded primarily by Building a Better California (Sergey Brin, John Doerr, Michael Moritz), with support from the
California Chamber of Commerce and Reform California. The relationship between Props 40, 41, and 42 is the defining
dynamic of the 2026 ballot: if Props 41 or 42 each receive more "yes" votes than Prop 40, they prevail in case of
conflict and effectively nullify the wealth tax.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Building a Better California (Sergey Brin, John Doerr, Michael Moritz), California Chamber of Commerce,
Reform California
Opponents: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Prop 40 proponents
|
Arguments in Support
● Mandatory audits provide taxpayer accountability for new government spending ● Applying new taxes to the Gann spending limit prevents government from circumventing voterapproved fiscal constraints ● Blocks a potentially unconstitutional or economically harmful retroactive wealth tax before it causes damage |
Arguments Against
● Prop 40 proponents argue this measure is a billionaire-funded vehicle to protect extreme wealth from taxation ● The Gann spending limit provision is the functional core — audit requirements are seen by critics as window dressing ● If Prop 41 passes but with fewer votes than Prop 40, its Gann provision may still operate to constrain wealth-tax revenues |
Proposition 42 — Prohibition on Personal Property and Retroactive Taxes
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Blocks Prop 40 mechanics
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment that prohibits new state taxes on the ownership or control of personal
property — including businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property — and prohibits most
retroactive taxes. Like Prop 41, if Prop 42 receives more "yes" votes than Prop 40, it prevails in any conflict with the
wealth tax.
Context
Also funded by Building a Better California (Brin, Doerr, Moritz) and supported by the California Chamber of
Commerce and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. Where Prop 41 targets the Gann
exemption, Prop 42 attacks the legality of taxing personal property assets at all — together forming a two-layer
defense against the Prop 40 wealth tax.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Building a Better California, California Chamber of Commerce, State Building and Construction Trades
Council of California
Opponents: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Prop 40 proponents
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Blocks Prop 40 mechanics
Summary
A citizen initiative constitutional amendment that prohibits new state taxes on the ownership or control of personal
property — including businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property — and prohibits most
retroactive taxes. Like Prop 41, if Prop 42 receives more "yes" votes than Prop 40, it prevails in any conflict with the
wealth tax.
Context
Also funded by Building a Better California (Brin, Doerr, Moritz) and supported by the California Chamber of
Commerce and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. Where Prop 41 targets the Gann
exemption, Prop 42 attacks the legality of taxing personal property assets at all — together forming a two-layer
defense against the Prop 40 wealth tax.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Building a Better California, California Chamber of Commerce, State Building and Construction Trades
Council of California
Opponents: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Prop 40 proponents
|
Arguments in Support
● Provides long-term constitutional protection against wealth taxes and retroactive taxes that could harm investment, innovation, and job creation ● The Building and Construction Trades’ support reflects concern that a wealth-tax climate could harm business investment in California ● Protects all Californians from future retroactive tax liability, not just billionaires |
Arguments Against
● Like Prop 41, this measure is viewed by opponents as a billionaire-funded constitutional entrenchment of wealth protection ● A blanket prohibition on personal property taxes could prevent future legislatures from addressing wealth concentration through any means ● The retroactive-tax prohibition has broad implications beyond the wealth-tax context |
Proposition 43 — Local Special Tax Supermajority Requirement
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Limits local revenue-raising ability
Summary
A constitutional amendment (ACA 22, Wicks) that requires two-thirds voter approval for all future local special taxes
— including those placed on the ballot via citizen initiative. A 2020 California Supreme Court ruling currently allows
citizen-initiated special taxes to pass with a simple majority; Prop 43 would close that loophole, restoring the twothirds
threshold for all local special taxes beginning January 1, 2027. The measure does not apply retroactively.
Context
The product of last-minute dealmaking: the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) had qualified a broader,
retroactive initiative in exchange for withdrawing it, Democratic legislative leaders placed ACA 22 on the ballot with
near-unanimous bipartisan legislative support. Several Democratic legislators plan to campaign against the measure
they themselves placed on the ballot.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Republican state lawmakers
Opponents: Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (author), many Democratic legislators, labor unions, local government
advocates
Legislative referral · Fiscal Impact: Limits local revenue-raising ability
Summary
A constitutional amendment (ACA 22, Wicks) that requires two-thirds voter approval for all future local special taxes
— including those placed on the ballot via citizen initiative. A 2020 California Supreme Court ruling currently allows
citizen-initiated special taxes to pass with a simple majority; Prop 43 would close that loophole, restoring the twothirds
threshold for all local special taxes beginning January 1, 2027. The measure does not apply retroactively.
Context
The product of last-minute dealmaking: the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) had qualified a broader,
retroactive initiative in exchange for withdrawing it, Democratic legislative leaders placed ACA 22 on the ballot with
near-unanimous bipartisan legislative support. Several Democratic legislators plan to campaign against the measure
they themselves placed on the ballot.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Republican state lawmakers
Opponents: Assembly Member Buffy Wicks (author), many Democratic legislators, labor unions, local government
advocates
|
Arguments in Support
● Restores the original intent of Proposition 13 (1978), which required two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes ● Closes a court-created loophole that allowed organized interest groups to impose taxes with just 50%+1 support ● Protects local taxpayers and businesses from taxes approved by narrow majorities ● Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Republican legislators broadly support |
Arguments Against
● Raises the bar for local communities to fund schools, transit, infrastructure, and public safety through the initiative process ● Cities and local governments warn a two-thirds threshold could make it practically impossible to raise revenue for essential services ● Progressive advocates argue the two-thirds requirement gives a minority veto over majority preferences ● Many of the Democrats who negotiated the deal acknowledge it is a significant concession and plan to vote against it |
Proposition 44 — Community Health Clinic Spending Requirement
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Unknown; litigation risk
Summary
Requires nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90% of their annual revenues on
program services directly related to their charitable purpose, capping administrative costs at 10%. Clinics that fail to
comply face fines enforced by the state Attorney General; false reports could result in criminal charges.
Context
Sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. Critics, including the clinics themselves, have filed a federal
preemption challenge arguing the measure is inconsistent with federal law governing FQHCs.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
Opponents: California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of
California, California Teachers Association
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Unknown; litigation risk
Summary
Requires nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90% of their annual revenues on
program services directly related to their charitable purpose, capping administrative costs at 10%. Clinics that fail to
comply face fines enforced by the state Attorney General; false reports could result in criminal charges.
Context
Sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West. Critics, including the clinics themselves, have filed a federal
preemption challenge arguing the measure is inconsistent with federal law governing FQHCs.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
Opponents: California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of
California, California Teachers Association
|
Arguments in Support
● Ensures the majority of clinic revenue goes directly to patient care rather than administrative costs ● SEIU-UHW argues some clinic executives receive excessive compensation while patient services are underfunded ● Provides an accountability mechanism for nonprofit health centers receiving public funds ● Noncompliance penalties create financial incentives for reform |
Arguments Against
● California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, and Planned Parenthood all oppose — a broad coalition representing affected clinics ● Clinics are challenging the measure in federal court as preempted by federal FQHC law, creating immediate legal uncertainty ● The definition of "program services" is ambiguous; many legitimate administrative and IT functions support patient care but may not qualify ● Could force smaller clinics to cut management capacity in ways that harm operational quality |
Proposition 45 — CEQA Environmental Review Reform (Building an Affordable California
Act)
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Modest state savings
Summary
Amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for a broad category of
"essential projects" — including housing, water supply, transportation, clean energy, healthcare facilities, public
safety, broadband, and education projects. Key provisions include a 365-day limit on environmental review, expedited
review with limited alternatives analysis, a 270-day limit for courts to rule on CEQA challenges, and changes to court
remedies limiting the ability to halt or delay approved projects. Any future amendment would require a two-thirds
legislative supermajority.
Context
Placed on the ballot by Building a Better California and supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the
California Building Industry Association, PG&E, and Edison, the measure builds on CEQA reforms the Legislature
passed in 2025, going further with hard deadlines and curtailed judicial review. A recent PPIC poll shows 73% of likely
voters support the measure. The State Building and Construction Trades Council opposes, creating a split within the
broader construction coalition.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, Building a Better California, California Building Industry Association,
California Hospital Association, NAACP California, PG&E, Edison
Opponents: Clean and Healthy California (environmental coalition), State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California
Act)
Citizen initiative · Fiscal Impact: Modest state savings
Summary
Amends the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for a broad category of
"essential projects" — including housing, water supply, transportation, clean energy, healthcare facilities, public
safety, broadband, and education projects. Key provisions include a 365-day limit on environmental review, expedited
review with limited alternatives analysis, a 270-day limit for courts to rule on CEQA challenges, and changes to court
remedies limiting the ability to halt or delay approved projects. Any future amendment would require a two-thirds
legislative supermajority.
Context
Placed on the ballot by Building a Better California and supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, the
California Building Industry Association, PG&E, and Edison, the measure builds on CEQA reforms the Legislature
passed in 2025, going further with hard deadlines and curtailed judicial review. A recent PPIC poll shows 73% of likely
voters support the measure. The State Building and Construction Trades Council opposes, creating a split within the
broader construction coalition.
Key Stakeholders
Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, Building a Better California, California Building Industry Association,
California Hospital Association, NAACP California, PG&E, Edison
Opponents: Clean and Healthy California (environmental coalition), State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California
|
Arguments in Support
● CEQA litigation has been widely documented as blocking or delaying housing, clean energy, and water infrastructure projects for years or decades ● Sets clear timelines that create accountability for agencies and reduce strategic delay ● Builds on the Legislature’s own 2025 CEQA reforms, aligning with Sacramento’s direction ● Supported by the California Chamber of Commerce and clean-energy utilities ● 73% of likely voters support the measure per PPIC (July 2026) |
Arguments Against
● Clean and Healthy California (environmental advocates) argue the measure undermines meaningful environmental review for major projects ● The State Building and Construction Trades Council opposes — a notable split from the California Building Industry Association, likely tied to laborstandards provisions ● Limiting court review reduces a key accountability mechanism for communities challenging harmful projects ● The two-thirds legislative amendment requirement locks in the measure’s framework, reducing future flexibility |
Strategic Context for Redondo Beach
The Tax War and the Space Park Employer Base
The defining dynamic of the November ballot is the three-measure tax conflict: Prop 40 (billionaire wealth tax) versus
Props 41 and 42 (countermeasures). If both Props 41 and 42 each receive more "yes" votes than Prop 40, they
functionally nullify the wealth tax and establish durable constitutional protections against personal property and
retroactive taxes. For Redondo Beach specifically, the strongest outcome is Prop 40 failing outright while Props 41
and 42 pass — a result that protects the investment and R&D climate around the Northrop Grumman Space Park
campus and the broader aerospace, technology, and professional-services base the Chamber’s Business Attraction
priority is built around. The Governor’s opposition to Prop 40 — while not explicitly endorsing the countermeasures
— creates a fracture within the Democratic coalition that may benefit the business community’s preferred outcome.
Housing, Workforce Stability, and the Waterfront
Propositions 1, 37, and 45 together form a housing and infrastructure package that touches every one of the
Chamber’s Critical and High priorities: affordable and veterans’ housing (Prop 1), middle-income homeownership for
the workforce segment the Chamber’s Business Attraction priority names directly — aerospace, trades, engineering,
healthcare, and tourism (Prop 37) — and faster permitting for the housing, transportation, and utility projects tied to
King Harbor and Waterfront revitalization (Prop 45). These measures are complementary and align with both Priority
1 (Infrastructure, Utilities & Waterfront Revitalization) and Priority 4 (Public Health, Housing & Homelessness).
CEQA Reform and Event Readiness
Proposition 45 is the single measure most precisely aligned with RBCC’s Critical Priority 1, which calls for execution of
the King Harbor Public Amenities Plan and King Harbor Commercial Plan, continued Waterfront revitalization, and
improved connectivity along Redondo Beach Boulevard and the Artesia corridor. Faster CEQA timelines also support
the Platform’s cross-cutting Event Readiness focus area — infrastructure stress-testing ahead of the LA 2028 Olympic
and Paralympic Games, the FIFA World Cup, and other major regional events that will bring visitors through Redondo
Beach’s Waterfront and hospitality corridor. A recent PPIC poll shows 73% of likely voters support the measure, and it carries broad statewide business coalition backing, though the Building and Construction Trades Council’s opposition
is worth flagging to the GRC.
Elections and Governance
Three measures address the electoral process: Prop 4 (campaign finance), Prop 5 (recall reform), and Prop 39 (voter
ID).
Legislative Dynamics
Several measures reflect last-minute Sacramento dealmaking rather than grassroots advocacy. Prop 43 (local tax
supermajority) was placed on the ballot with near-unanimous legislative support but will be actively opposed by many
of the same legislators who voted for it — an unusual dynamic that creates an opportunity for business associations
like RBCC to support a taxpayer-protection measure with formal legislative origin even as individual legislators
campaign against it.