The RCJ has taken a look at the ballot issues in California’s upcoming mid-term elections. Besides determining the next Governor of the state, there are numerous ballot propositions. Below is an overview of how we will mark our ballot, along with links that explain why.
Candidates for Governor
Governor of California
Xavier Becerra (Democrat): Former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and California Attorney General.
Steve Hilton (Republican): Political commentator and television host.
OUR CHOICE: Xavier Becerra
PROPOSITIONS
Proposition 1: Housing Affordability Bonds
- Overview: Authorizes $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing programs, including funding for veteran home loans and youth housing.
OUR CHOICE: Yes
Proposition 2: Budget Stabilization Account Cap Increase
- Overview: Increases the cap on the state’s Rainy Day Fund (Budget Stabilization Account) from 10% to 20% of general fund revenues.
OUR CHOICE: Yes
Proposition 3: Income Tax Extension for Public Funding
- Overview: Makes permanent the higher marginal income tax rates on top-earning households originally passed under Proposition 30 to fund public education and healthcare programs.
OUR CHOICE: Yes
Proposition 4: Campaign Public Financing
- Overview: Repeals previous prohibitions and permits state and local governments to establish optional public financing programs for election campaigns.
OUR CHOICE: No
Proposition 5: Statewide Recall Process Changes
- Overview: Eliminates the successor election portion during a state officer recall, leaving the office vacant to be filled according to standard state replacement laws if the officer is recalled.
OUR CHOICE: Yes
Proposition 37: Middle-Income Homebuyer Loan Program
- Overview: Authorizes $25 billion in revenue bonds to create a state second-mortgage assistance program for qualifying homebuyers purchasing new homes.
OUR CHOICE: Yes
Proposition 38: Immunology Medical Research Bonds
- Overview: Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for medical research facilities and programs focused on immunology and immunotherapy.
OUR CHOICE: Yes
Proposition 39: Voter Identification Requirement
- Overview: Amends the state constitution to require voters to show government-issued photo ID when voting in person or verify ID details for mail-in ballots.
OUR CHOICE: No
Proposition 40: One-Time High-Net-Worth Wealth Tax
- Overview: Imposes a one-time 5% tax on accumulated assets exceeding $1 billion for state residents to fund public education, food assistance, and healthcare.
OUR CHOICE: No
Proposition 41: Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
- Overview: Proposition 41 focuses on tax policy, spending caps, and oversight mechanisms:
- State Spending Limit Restrictions: The measure would nullify any state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026, that attempt to exempt their revenues from California’s voter-approved state spending limit (often referred to as the Gann Limit).
- Mandatory Audits: It establishes requirements for pre-election and recurring audits for programs funded by newly proposed state special taxes, including special tax citizen initiatives.
OUR CHOICE: No
Proposition 42: Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
- Overview: Proposition 42 focuses on placing constitutional restrictions on the state’s ability to introduce new taxes on personal property and prohibiting certain retroactive state taxes:
- Ban on New Personal Property Taxes: The measure prohibits any new state tax on the ownership of personal property, including financial assets such as stocks, retirement accounts, pensions, and savings accounts. It does not affect standard taxes on real estate or existing property tax rules.
- Restriction on Retroactive Taxes: It bars new state taxes from applying retroactively based on a taxpayer’s past conduct, activities, or prior residency status.
- Effective Window: These restrictions apply to any new taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026.
OUR CHOICE: No
Proposition 43: Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
- Overview: Proposition 43 focuses on raising the voting threshold required to pass local citizen-proposed special taxes:
- Higher Vote Threshold for Special Taxes: The measure requires a two-thirds majority (66.67%) for all local special taxes—which are taxes dedicated to specific purposes like public safety, parks, or transportation—regardless of whether they are placed on the ballot by local government officials or via citizen initiative.
- Overturning Prior Court Precedent: Following a 2017 ruling by the California Supreme Court (California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland), local special taxes submitted through voter citizen initiatives only required a simple majority (50% plus one) to pass, whereas those placed on the ballot by local governing boards required a two-thirds vote. Proposition 43 eliminates this distinction and applies a uniform two-thirds requirement to all voter-proposed local special taxes approved after January 1, 2027.
- Fiscal Impact: According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, setting a higher voter threshold could result in lower local government tax revenues in the future compared to existing rules, as certain voter-backed special taxes may be harder to pass.
OUR CHOICE: No
Proposition 44: Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% Of Revenue on Program Services. Initiative Statute.
Constitutional Amendment.
- Overview: Proposition 44 establishes rules regarding how private, non-profit safety net community health clinics allocate their financial resources:
- 90% Spending Mandate: The measure requires affected private non-profit safety net clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue directly on patient health care and program services, capping administrative and non-care expenses at 10%.
- Financial Penalties: Clinics that fail to meet the 90% requirement must pay a penalty equal to the shortfall amount to the state. Clinics can recover these penalty funds if they meet compliance targets within five years; otherwise, the state retains the funds for health workforce training programs.
- Regulatory Oversight: Directs the California Attorney General to define specific eligible health care expenses using existing federal reporting guidelines as a framework.
- Fiscal Impact: According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office Proposition 44 Analysis, enforcement operations will result in state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, which would be covered by assessing fees on regulated clinics. Additional indirect state and local fiscal impacts remain uncertain.
OUR CHOICE: Yes
Proposition 45: Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute.
Constitutional Amendment.
- Overview: Proposition 45 proposes significant modifications to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Permit Streamlining Act to accelerate reviews and legal proceedings for designated categories of “essential projects”:
- Eligible “Essential Projects”: The expedited rules apply to specified project types, including housing, water quality and supply systems (excluding Delta conveyance facilities), clean energy, medical treatment facilities, broadband internet, public safety/wildfire mitigation (excluding jails/prisons), educational facilities, and transportation projects (excluding high-speed rail).
- Enforceable Review Timelines: Sets binding caps on review windows for public agencies (such as 30 days to determine application completeness, 180 days for negative declarations, and 365 days to certify an Environmental Impact Report).
- Reduced Scope for Alternatives: Allows project applicants to present only one alternative for the public agency to evaluate, rather than requiring agencies to consider multiple alternatives.
- Fixed Regulatory Standards: Assesses environmental impacts based strictly on the laws and standards in place when the application is submitted, preventing mid-review standard changes.
- Judicial Streamlining: Establishes a 270-day “shot clock” for courts to resolve CEQA lawsuits and limits judicial remedies so that a court cannot halt an entire project if only a portion of an environmental report is flawed.
- Fiscal Impact: According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office Proposition 45 Analysis, implementation involves initial state and local government administrative costs in the high tens of millions (potentially exceeding $100 million) annually, partially offset by fees, with long-term fiscal effects depending on project approval rates.
OUR CHOICE: No