Ballot Measures & Propositions
Midterm Election
October 5 through November 3,  2026

League volunteers explain both sides of the issue.
Our volunteers work together to research the measures and their impacts, create slide presentations with both the Pro's and the Con's of the issues, and include questions submitted by audiences. 

Since 2020, we have done most of our Ballot Measure Pro's & Con's online, as Zoom Webinars - and posted them afterwards as Webinar Recordings.

Click Here to see the list of Pro/Con presentations, as well as Candidate forums. 

On that page you can:

• Register for the Zoom Link to view any of the Presentations

• Read below about the measures on the ballot
  

• Bookmark the page and check back again

• Link to Video uploads of the events, which will be posted here as soon as they become available 

About the Regional & Local Measures

 G.  Sunnyvale Public Works Contracting

The Question:

Yes or No:

Background: 

Currently, Section 1309 of the Sunnyvale city charter restricts the City to a only one method for procurement of contractors for construction projects. This means the City must:
  • First, go through the bidding process to hire a firm to completely design the project
  • Second, go through another bidding process  for the actual construction.
The job must be granted to the lowest bidder, with no other factors being considered.

Measure G would allow the City to choose to use an additional method from those that are allowed by California law, such as a single bid process for hiring one qualified team for both design and construction.
It would also allow consideration of other factors, such as technical expertise, in selecting the winning bidder. 

 H.  Sunnyvale City Manager Settlement Authority

The Question:

Yes or No:

 I.  Elections to fill Sunnyvale City Council Vacancies

The Question:

Yes or No:

Background: 

1.  call a special city-wide election (this was written before Sunnyvale had districts for Council members)
2. appoint a replacement by vote of the Council

If a person is appointed, they serve until the earliest of either the next statewide election or the  next General Municipal Election (always held in November of even-numbered years).  This can lead to situations when two elections could be held withing a year of each other for the same seat. For example, in a year when there's a statewide Primary election in the spring this could lead to a requirement to hold two elections for the same seat in a single year. 

 This proposal eliminates the risk of a 2-election year for a single Council seat when a replacement is appointed.  Also, depending on the timing of the vacancy, it could lead to a appointee serving for nearly two full years.   

 L.  Cupertino Parks, Parkland, and Open Space Preservation  Initiative

The Question:

Yes or No:

Background: 

 RTM.  Create Sales Tax to Fund Regional Transportation Systems Initiative

The Question:

Yes or No:

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area for  BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit. They currently face combined annual operating deficits exceeding $800 million. Without additional funding, the agencies warn of substantially less frequent service, station closures, higher fares, and shorter operating hours.

 In 2025 the California Legislature passed  SB-63: San Francisco Bay area: local revenue measure: public transit funding. which authorized MTC to put a sales tax measure on the ballot for 5 counties in their district to raise funds to prevent major transit service cuts  resulting from the budget shortfalls.

If passed, the sales tax would apply to to the “Public Transit Revenue Measure District” which consists of:

• the 4 counties of:
  • Alameda,
  • Contra Costa,
  • San Mateo
  • Santa Clara,
• plus the City and County of San Francisco,

The effect of this initiative, if approved, will be to impose a retail sales tax for fourteen (14) years, at:

• 0.5% in Alameda County
• 0.5% in Contra Costa County
• 0.5% in San Mateo County
• 0.5% in Santa Clara County
• 1.0% in San Francisco County

The total annual revenue is estimated to be about $980 million each year. The details of how the funds will be used for transit support across the five counties is defined in great detail in Chapter 3 of SB-63: San Francisco Bay area: local revenue measure: public transit funding.  

Additional Information: 

 S.  Term limits for Directors of the Board of El Camino Heathcare District

The Question:

Yes or No?

Shall the measure amending the Bylaws of the El Camino Healthcare District to limit District Directors to four four-year terms be adopted?

Note: The measure needs a 50% 'Yes' majority  to pass.
   

Background: 

About the California State-wide Propositions

1.   Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs

The Question:

Should the state be authorized to borrow $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds: $10 billion to fund affordable rental housing and homeownership programs, and $1.25 billion for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans?

Background: 

The  Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 authorized the state to issue bonds in the amount of $4 Billion for various housing programs, including housing loans for veterans. In 2024, voters approved $2 billion in housing bonds for veterans and people experiencing homelessness with mental health issues

This new bond act would allow the state to borrow money by selling bonds up to the amount of $11.25 Billion to fund a variety of housing programs, including single and multi-family individually-owned and affordable rental properties, plus  supporting  infrastructure for the housing. Specific amounts are set aside for housing for homeless, youth, students, veterans, farmworkers, tribal members.

2.   Increases the State’s Rainy Day Fund

The Question:

Should the state change how much the state must deposit into the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA - Rainy-Day Fund), raise the cap on the account's balance from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax proceeds, and exclude reserve deposits from the state spending limit? 

   
Background: 

For many reasons the state of  California’s income can change dramatically from one year to the next.  Meanwhile, the state's spending commitments are made far in advance. This is a problem when outgo exceeds income, since the state constitution requires a balanced budget every year. . To take care of that issue,  the state is required to put aside some of its revenue into a Rainy Day Fund (the BSA) to be used to even out the cash flow. This constitutional change makes an increase to the fiscal cushion.

Approval of this Proposition would mean that the rules in the CA Constitution  for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts be changed so that:

• Reserves: The amount in the state's Budget Stabilization Fund (the 'Rainy Day Fund') would be doubled over time from what it is now because of measures to increase saving
• Paying down debt: The state would also be required to make extra payments for things like  paying down debts on retiree pension and health care, schools, and community colleges.

The proposed changes require an update to the California constitution because the Rainy Day Fund was added to the state constitution in 2014, so 

Additional Information: 

3.    Provide Permanent Funding for Schools and Healthcare

The Question:

Should the state make permanent the existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates on high incomes, currently set to expire in 2031. Allocates the revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges, with local school boards deciding how revenues are spent.

   Background: 

In 2012 voters approved Prop 30, which created a law that would temporarily:

• Increase income taxes on 'high earners' (earning above roughly  $500,000/yr) for 7 years (2012-2018) 
• Increase the state sales tax for  by  0.25% 4 years (2013-2016).
• Fund designated Public Safety Services such as:
  •  Employing and training public safety officials
  • Managing local jails  
  • Providing housing, treatment, and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders
  • Preventing child abuse, neglect, or exploitation
  • Providing mental health services to children and adults
  • Preventing, treating, and providing recovery services for substance abuse. 
• Fund school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts

In 2016, California voters extended these temporary tax changes by voting to  extend Prop 30 for 12 years, from expiring in 2019 to expiring in 2030 (Prop 55). These actions were caried out by creating and amending a California law that expires in 2031. 

Under the current tax law top earners (over one million)  pay 13.3% of their income in state taxes,  which accounts for about half of all state income taxes collected.  

Prop 3 would make this law permanent by amending Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution.
If  Prop 3 fails the maximum tax rate would drop in 2031 to 9.3%.  

4.   Repeals the Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns

The Question:

Should the state allow public funds to be used for campaign financing when candidates abide by expenditure limits and strict qualifying criteria, and increase penalties for prohibited foreign contributions in connection with ballot measures and elections?

Background: 

Public funding of election campaigns is a system in which a state or local governmental entity gives candidates money to use in their election campaign if the candidate agrees to abide by a number of strict rules, such as  spending limits, tighter fundraising rules, and audits.

Since 1988 it has been  illegal In California  for election campaigns to use any public funds, with just a few cities having special exemptions. 
If approved, Prop 4 would eliminate that prohibition on public campaign financing by modifying Section 85300 of the California Government Code It would also prohibit the use of such public funds from paying for:

• Personal loans
• legal defense
• fines
• discriminating based on party
• favoring incumbents.
  
  Prop 4  does not establish any fund or specific program for public funding. It  sets some guidelines for rules for local or state government to establish and run such a fund . It amends Section 85300 of the California government GOV code and the Political Reform Act of 1974.
  

5.   Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers

The Question:

Should the state eliminate the successor election when a state officer is recalled, leaving the office vacant until filled under the Constitution and state law; if the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor becomes Governor for the remainder of the term?  

Background: 

Californians can replace a current elected official through a process called "Recall." It starts with a petition. The number of  signatures required is  based on turnout in the most recent election for that office.  If supporters collect enough signatures, an election must be held within 60 to 80 days, or 180 days if that allows combining it with an upcoming regularly scheduled election
.. 
The rules for recall elections are in the California Constitution. Currently the recall ballot must contain two questions:

       1. Yes or No - should the incumbent be removed from the office?
       2. Vote for the candidate you prefer to fill the office. (the incumbent is not allowed to run)
 Any voter can leave either question blank.  If the YES vote on question #1 is 50% or more, then the person who got the most votes in question #2 wins, even if their vote share  is less than 50%.

Prop 5 would change the California Constitution to  require that question #1 and question #2 be handled separately . First, an election would be held for the recall. If  the recall passes , then the seat is declared vacant and the vacancy must be filled either by appointment or a special election depending on the office.  In order to win the special election someone must get 50%+1 votes. 

The proposition also goes into great detail about how the appointment would happen in the case of the recall of the state Governor. In most cases the Lieutenant Governor would serve until voters select a new governor.

37.   Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes

The Question:

Should California authorize up to $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate second mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a qualified new home? Bonds are repaid by homeowners' mortgage payments, not the State.

Background: 

There is a shortage of affordable housing in California. This proposal attempts to address part of the new housing issue, in tightly defined circumstances.  Prop 37  proposes a way of increasing home ownership for one portion of the population.
That portion for whom Prop 37 applies  is defined as:  those with a family income less than twice the median income of a family of the same size in the  area where the new home is located,

The home byer must be buying only a  "newly constructed home, townhome, row house, condominium, or manufactured home", or a unit in a building that is newly-renovated from non-residential (such as an office building). No older homes or condos are covered. 

The buyer must use a fixed-rate mortgage loan for the purchase.  The California Housing Finance Agency  (CalHFA) would lend the buyer up to 17% of the purchase price as a second mortgage to be used for the down payment.

This bill intends to obtain up to $250 Billion to provide those second mortgages by selling Revenue Bonds, rather than General Obligation bonds. The difference is: When a governmental entity issues (sells) bonds to get money for a project, the buyers get paid back, with interest, using either:

       - for General Obligation (GO) bonds money raised by taxes.
       - for Revenue bonds, money raised through the activities of the project that the bonds financed.
The revenue in this case will be the payments made to  CalHFA on the second mortgages.

  38.   Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research

The Question:

Should the state authorize $8.4 billion in state general obligation (GO) bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, split between a University of California-affiliated nonprofit research institute and a grant program for public or nonprofit universities and institutions?
  

Background: 

Immunology is the study of the body’s immune system. Immunotherapy research is focused on finding  treatments that help the immune system prevent, treat, or cure disease.
Generally, medical research in the United States is funded by a combination of sources:  private industry, the federal government, universities, and nonprofit organizations, with most of the funds coming from private industry,  while federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health support a large share of basic scientific research. State governments generally play a smaller role in funding medical research.

Prop 38 would authorize the state to borrow $8.4 Billion to provide funds for research specifically in immunology and immunotherapy research. The bonds would be repaid, with interest,  from the state’s General Fund. The primary sources of money for the California General Fund are personal income tax, sales tax, and corporate income tax. 

The grants are  required to be disbursed as:

• 50 % to be shared among seven University of California campuses: Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and San Francisco
• 50% to a single medical research institute that meets a listed set of criteria, including that it:
  • is nonprofit
  • was founded for the primary purpose of, and specializes specifically in, conducting research in the fields of immunology and immunotherapy
    
  • owns or leases a site that is not less than 200,000 square feet in size and that has an intended purpose of serving as a research facility
  • has an affiliation agreement with a campus of the University of California that:
    • has a graduate training program in immunology and immunotherapy
    • has a hospital and clinic volume of greater than 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3,500,000 outpatient visits each year

If  a recipient of research funds is eventually able to derive revenue from the results of the funded research, they are required to pay to the State of California  10% of such revenues. Discounts for the cost of  any treatment resulting from the research are required for California residents.

  39.  Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification

The Question:

Should the state require voters to present government-issued identification at the polls (or provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID number when voting by mail), require the State to provide voter ID cards on request, and require officials to annually report citizenship-verification rates. 
  

Background: 

The U.S. Constitution only states who is allowed to vote. It never says who cannot vote. There is no federal law that specifically states that non-citizens cannot vote. This decision is left to the individual states, in keeping with Article I, Section 4, of the US Constitution, which grants to the individual states the authority to regulate the "Times, Places and Manner" of elections. California, like most states has both a constitutional statement and laws about who is eligible to vote.     

Currently:

• The California Constitution,  Article 2, SEC. 2.  (a) states: "A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote." 
• In 2024, the state enacted SB 1174, which prohibits any county from requiring voter ID for voting. 
• When Californians register to vote, they must sign a statement on the registration form, under penalty of perjury,  that they are U.S. citizens, live in California, and are age 18 or older. 
  • They must also provide identifying information with their registration of either a California driver's license number, DMV ID, or Social Security number that can be checked.  New citizens may also be required to show their Naturalization papers. 
  • If they register by mail or online, a person may, the first time they vote in a federal election,  be required to show their ID matching the one they provided at registration. 

   

  
  If Prop 39 passes:

• Elections Officials would be required to verify citizenship on the registration using government data, and annually report what percent of voter rolls have been citizenship-verified. 
  
• People who vote in person would be required to show government-issued identification that matches the ID they used for registration every time they vote
• People who vote by mail/ballot box would be required to write, on the outside of the ballot return envelope, the last four digits of the  government-supplied ID number they used on their original registration form. 
  •  If the 4 digits on the ID or the ballot envelope do not match the records, the ballot will not be counted unless an Election Official verifies the identity of the person voting.

Additional Information: 

  40.   Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers  (the 'Billionaire Tax')

The Question:

Should the state impose aone-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion, allocating 90% of the revenues to health care and 10% to food assistance or education-related programs.?
  

Background: 

In 2025 the US Congress passed and the President signed  H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, containing budget-cutting measures, many of which will go into effect in late 2026 and early 2027.  California expects to face funding cuts of Billions per year for many federally-subsidized programs, including  about $30 Billion annually in Medi-Cal and up to $9.5 Billion in new administrative costs.  State, county, and local budgets are already being cut, since the California fiscal (budgeting) year, which goes July through June, has had to anticipate these losses.

Proposition 40 was created in response to H.R. 1, to create increased income for the state over a period of about 5 years, resulting from a one-time 'wealth tax.'   A wealth tax is different from an income tax, as:

• an income tax is a repeating tax, usually due annually, on money  earned over that time period, such as wages, salaries, tips, or rental income. 
• a wealth tax is usually a one-time tax on things that people own, such as stocks, bonds, real estate, savings,  privately owned businesses, art, collectibles, and other assets, reduced by amounts owed (debt).

California has historically taxed income rather than wealth. Currently the top earners (over $1 Million/year) pay 13.3% of net earnings in state income tax. 
The law for Proposition 40 is complex and over 12,000 words long  (you can read it at the link below).

In brief,  Prop 40 would:

• Create a  '2026 Billionaire Tax Reserve Fund,' 90% of which is designated for health care, 10% for education and food assistance programs. The money for the Fund would come from the one-time wealth tax.
•  Set up a one-time wealth tax on trusts and on people who were California citizens as of 1/1/2026) with net worth, as of 13/31/2026,  of one Billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) or more
  • A married couple counts as one person
  • Most retirement accounts would be exempt, although very large Roth IRA accounts above $10 million and some pension benefits might be included.
  • Debts, except for some named exceptions, would be subtracted from the net worth calculation
• Be a one-time amount of  5% of net worth (wealth), with a sliding tax scale between 1% - 5% for those with net worth between 1 Billion and  1.1 Billion ($1,100,000,000)
•  Provide, in Chapter 6, Section 50310, Legislative Authority, that "The Legislature may amend the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, by statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds (2/3) of the membership concurring, if the statute is consistent with and furthers the purposes of the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act." 

  41.  Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit

The Question:

Background: 

Prop 41's initiative was created as a response to Prop 40. Prop 41 contains a 'Conflicting Measures' clause that says, in brief, that if it's on the same  statewide ballot as any other initiative proposition that contains a state tax that is exempted from the Government Spending Limitation (e.g. Prop 40),  then that other initiative proposition is in conflict with Prop 41, so if Prop 41 gets more Yes votes the other proposition,  that other proposition is null and void. 

The  proposed law  for Prop 41 requires that: "No state tax that is enacted or takes effect on or after January 1, 2026, shall be exempted or excluded from the Government Spending Limitation."  The  Government Spending Limitation  is defined in  Article XIII B  of the California constitution,. It was enacted by voters in 1979 and is commonly known at the the Gann Limit.

Prop 41 is about taxes that:

• are the result of an initiative petition that gets on the ballot  (not a law passed by the legislature), and
  
• are approved in a state-wide election held after January 1, 2026, and
• are designated to only  be used to fund specific stated  purposes (not general funds), as limited by the Gann Limit or
• are excluded from the Gann Limit
  

If approved, Prop 41 would add to the responsibilities of the CA State Auditor:

• Pre-Audits of any initiative that meets the criteria above before the initiative could appear on a ballot. 
• Audits, at least every four years, of every program funded by special taxes, whether approved by voters or by the Legislature. 

Since many of these limitations apply to sections of Prop 40,  if Prop 41 passes it would challenge, and possibly nullify, Prop 40.

  42.  Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes

The Question:

Should the state prohibit any new state tax on the ownership or control of personal property (including retirement accounts, financial assets, and business interests) or that applies retroactively, for taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026.

Background: 

Prop 42 was created in response to Prop 40. Prop 42 contains a 'Conflicting Measures' clause  that says, in brief, that if it's on the same  statewide ballot as any other initiative proposition that would impose, on or after after January 1, 2026, a tax on personal savings or the ownership or control of  individually owned assets, including  personal property,  then the other proposition is in conflict with Prop 42. So, if Prop 42 gets more Yes votes the other measure (e.g. Prop 40) then that other proposition is null and void. 

If approved, Prop 42 would prohibit any new state law or state constitutional amendment, on or after January 1, 2026, that:

•  taxes individually owned assets, including savings and  personal property, whether held directly or indirectly  or
• retroactively taxes  residency,  status, or conduct prior to the effective date of the state law or constitutional provision. 
  

 43.  Limits Voters' Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services

The Question:

Background: 

Prop 43 is about what the level of approval needs to be to pass a  local measure about taxes.
Currently the rules for what percent is required to pass a tax vote are:

(Note: A 'special tax' is any tax  levied either:  (a) to be used for specific purposes or (b) by a school district, special district, or community college district.)

If approved, Prop 43 would amend the state constitution,  Article XIII A, to increase the size of the majority needed to pass a local special tax (proposed by voters) from the current 50%+1 up to 66.7%, starting January 1, 2027. This would allow a minority vote of 33.3% to defeat any local special tax.

Prop 43 is the result of a deal made between state lawmakers and the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to keep an even more restrictive tax proposal off the ballot. The original tax proposal from Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association would have retroactively invalidated every local  special tax measure that had been approved under the current  50%+1 rule if it had less than a 2/3 (66.7%) approval.  That clause is not in Prop 43.

  44.  Requires that Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services

The Question:

Should the state require nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers to spend at least 90% of their revenue on program services advancing their charitable purpose rather than management and overhead, with monetary penalties for noncompliance?
  

Background: 

Federally Qualified Health Centers (also known as Safety Net Clinics) are community clinics providing primary and preventive care to medically underserved areas and populations. There are about 2,000 safety net clinics in California. Many are nonprofit, while some are operated by public entities such as counties. The revenue for these clinics comes from a combination of Medi-Cal reimbursements, federal grants, private insurance, local grants and donations, and direct patient payments.  

If passed, Prop 44 would require these Health Centers to spend at least 90% of their revenue on mission-related services and activities. The California Attorney General would be responsible for defining which expenses qualify as mission-related and would calculate the percentage of revenue spent on mission-related activities, based on financial information reported by the clinic. The Attorney General's office would then have to make this data publicly available on its website within 90 days of receipt.

Local clinics would be charged fees to pay for the estimated  tens of millions of dollars each year that would be needed to pay for the additional workload for the state Attorney General's office,  possibly adding to their non-mission expenses.

  45.   Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects

The Question:

Should the state amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review of specified project categories (including most housing, transportation, water, health, and clean energy projects), setting deadlines for review and limiting court review of project approvals?
  

Background: 

California State law requires government agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects. Many projects also need to get other approvals/permits that can only happen after CEQA completion.  

In order to tighten time limits for review and court challenges of projects, Prop 45's lengthy proposed law  would significantly modify California's environmental review process, including: 

• How environmental impacts are assessed 
• Projects alternatives 
• Consultations with Native Tribes 
• Public comments periods 
• How courts review challenges to eligible projects 
• The application process 

It would apply to a variety of projects including:

• Health facilities, clinics, and medical office buildings 
• Fire, police, and sheriff’s stations 
• Education facilities
• Housing 
• Water infrastructure 
• Clean energy (not including nuclear power) 
• Broadband Internet access 
• Transportation (not including high-speed rail) 
• Wildfire risk reduction