VOTE WITH THE LEAGUE
November 2026 Quick Reference Guide to LWVC Ballot Recommendations
YES on1,2,3,4,5 NO on 37,38,39,41,42,43,44,45 NEUTRAL on 40
PROP 1 Veterans & Affordable Housing Bonds SUPPORT Authorizes $10 billion in bonds for affordable housing construction, preservation, and homeownership programs, plus $1.25 billion for CalVet home loans expected to be repaid by borrowers. California's earlier affordable housing bond funds are spent while projects remain stalled, and housing costs continue to drive homelessness and overcrowding.
PROP 2 Save for California's Future Act SUPPORT Allows California to save more during strong economic years by building a larger rainy-day fund and requiring more savings when capital gains taxes are unusually high. Stronger reserves can protect schools and other essential services and reduce emergency borrowing when revenues fall.
PROP 3 Children’s Education & Health Care Protection SUPPORT Keeps California's current income tax rates on the highest-income 2 percent of taxpayers after 2030. Without Prop 3, those rates would fall in 2031, reducing state revenue by an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion a year. Prop 3 does not raise anyone's tax rate today.
PROP 4 California Fair Elections Act SUPPORT
Lifts California's near-total ban on public campaign financing and lets state and local governments create voluntary programs. Prop 4 creates no program and spends no money by itself. Public financing can amplify small donors, broaden who can run, and reduce dependence on wealthy donors, with safeguards on public funds and stronger penalties for illegal foreign money. The LWVC is an official proponent.
PROP 5 Recall Election Reform for Statewide Officers SUPPORT Prop 5 ends a system that can hand office to a replacement supported by only a small plurality. If a recall succeeds, the vacancy is filled under existing rules. For Governor, the Lieutenant Governor serves as Governor and, if the recall occurs early enough, voters elect a successor at the next statewide election. The LWVC is an official proponent.
PROP 37 Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of New Homes OPPOSE
Prop 37 addresses a real down-payment barrier, but with another mortgage that buyers generally would repay monthly on terms voters would not know in advance. It could reinforce racial and economic gaps: it gives no priority to first-time or first-generation buyers, could assist households earning more than $300,000 in some areas, and still requires at least 3 percent down. Assistance is limited to new or converted homes with no requirement that they be near jobs, transit, schools, or services. The Legislative Analyst says it is uncertain whether the program would result in more homes being built or purchased.
PROP 38 Bonds for Immunology Medical Research OPPOSE
Medical research saves lives, but bonds are a poor way to fund it. Prop 38 would borrow $8.4 billion, requiring $500 million to $600 million in General Fund payments each year for about 20 years, about 10 percent more after inflation than paying up front. It would also lock billions into one field as other research needs emerge. Finally, California's stem-cell bond experience shows that royalties may do little to offset the debt.
1
PROP 39 Prohibits Voting Without Government-Issued ID OPPOSE
Prop 39 is a Trump-inspired partisan power grab built on false claims about California elections. It would require government-issued ID every time someone votes in person and make mail voters put
the last four digits of a designated ID number on the ballot envelope. California already verifies voter
identity. Prop 39 would add barriers to voting, expose sensitive information to identity theft, force rejections of valid ballots for clerical mismatches, rely on flawed citizenship data, and cost up to hundreds of millions yearly. The LWVC is an official opponent.
PROP 40 Billionaire Tax NEUTRAL
Federal budget cuts threaten Medi-Cal and food assistance for millions of Californians. Prop 40 would impose a one-time tax of up to 5 percent on billionaire wealth, directing most of the money to health care. It could raise tens of billions and advance League goals on basic needs and tax equity. But one- time, earmarked funding is not a stable long-term solution, the tax relies on only a few hundred
people, and its timing and revenue effects are uncertain. Strong League positions point both ways, so the LWVC is neutral.
PROP 41 Limits New State Taxes & Requires Special Tax Audits OPPOSE Makes revenue from new state taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, count toward the Gann Limit's constitutional spending cap and requires audits of programs funded by new or increased special taxes. It could prevent the state from raising or spending all the money voters authorize for public priorities and would reduce its ability to respond to changing needs.
PROP 42 Limits New State Taxes on Personal Property OPPOSE Constitutionally prohibits new state taxes on the ownership or control of a broad range of personal property, including stocks, business interests, art, intellectual property, retirement accounts, and other savings and assets. It also limits certain retroactive taxes. The League opposes locking away future revenue options that California may need under different economic or fiscal conditions.
PROP 43 Two-Thirds Vote for Certain Local Taxes OPPOSE
Requires a two-thirds vote for new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by voters through the initiative process. That would let a minority of voters block tax measures supported by most voters and make it harder for communities to raise revenue when local needs or economic conditions change.
PROP 44 Safety-Net Clinic Spending Requirement OPPOSE Requires affected nonprofit safety-net clinics to spend at least 90 percent of annual revenue on health care services or face substantial penalties. This rigid rule could force clinics to cut services or close, shifting patients to other safety-net providers and increasing public costs.
PROP 45 Changes CEQA Review for Essential Projects OPPOSE
Changes CEQA review for designated essential projects by imposing tighter timelines, sharply limiting the alternatives studied, reducing opportunities for public participation and interagency coordination, and narrowing review of impacts covered by other environmental laws. The League opposes speeding projects by weakening environmental review, public input, and protections for affected communities.
Forfullrecommendationsandanalysesvisithttps://lwvc.org/ballot-recommendations