Statewide Ballot Measures

LA Forward strongly recommends a YES vote on Proposition 1, a $11.25 billion bond measure to fund affordable housing targeting the lowest income people across the state. Housing affordability continues to be one of, if not the biggest, challenge facing California. A third of renter households pay more than half their income on housing, while 80% of extremely low-income households pay more than half their income on housing. Put simply, that’s a million California households facing hard choices between groceries, needed healthcare, schoolbooks for their kids, and paying the rent.

Proposition 1 would address this by replenishing California’s main program for building deed-restricted affordable housing that targets the lowest income people, the Multifamily Housing Program, with over $5 billion in bond funds, $1 billion of which would be reserved for supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness. A host of other affordable housing programs, including those serving veterans, farm workers, and tribal communities, would see their funding boosted. Taken together, these investments are estimated to produce over 40,000 new affordable homes and preserve over 5,000 homes that are anticipated to lose their affordability status.

Recent headlines have given the impression that California spends excessively on housing and homelessness. But that has largely consisted of one-time splashes of funding in years when the state budget had a surplus and was buoyed by federal relief funding. In recent years, the State of California spends approximately 0.5% of its budget on housing and homelessness, out of step with where voters consistently rank the importance of this issue. California needs to set aside ongoing funding in the billions in a consistent, ongoing manner to solve our affordability challenges, but has not been able to accomplish that goal. In the meantime, Prop 1 is a critical stopgap to ensure new affordable homes continue to be produced to house the most vulnerable people.

For more details and analysis, check out this excellent write-up by the California Budget and Policy Center.

LA Forward encourages you to vote YES on Prop 1.

Proposition 2 would double the cap on the state’s rainy-day fund (the Budget Stabilization Account, BSA) from 10% to 20% of annual tax revenue, and allow state lawmakers and the governor to use reserve funds to pay off state debt (but would not be required). Under current state law, California lawmakers may save only 10% of the general fund to the BSA. LA Forward suggests voters should support Proposition 2.

Proposition 2 is a legislative-referred state constitutional amendment. Supporters, including the Democratic Party of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas, and Senate President pro Tempore Monique Limón, believe the 10% reserve cap is not enough given the volatility in state finances California has experienced in recent years. For example, according to the Department of Finance, California estimated a $101 billion surplus in 2022-2023, but in 2024-2025 the state faced a projected $47 billion deficit.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) analyzed the state’s finances through thousands of hypothetical scenarios over the next 50 years. It continued to predict economic swings, whereby cuts to core services and programs or tax increases would be necessary to sustain spending if the proposition were not passed. The LAO recommended a 50% reserve cap given California finance volatility, though this proposition would raise the reserve cap to 20%.

In 2004, California voters supported Proposition 58, which required balanced budgets and established the BSA (71% in support versus 29% opposed). In 2014, California voters increased the potential savings cap from 5% to 10% of the General Fund (69% in support versus 31% opposed). There is historical precedent for saving excess gains during “boom” years. It is also important to understand the basics of California state revenue.

California raises revenue through the state income tax and funds most programs through the General Fund. High-income taxpayers pay much of the income tax, and their incomes often include gains from stocks and other investments. These revenue streams depend on the economy and the stock market, which can vary year to year. To avoid potential cuts to core programs and services, Proposition 2 would allow state lawmakers and the Governor to save money in anticipation of bad fiscal years and pay back state debts.

For more detailed analysis, check out California Budget and Policy Center’s write-up.

Opponents of Proposition 2, including Republican State Assemblymember Joe Patterson, Republican State Senator Tony Strickland of Huntington Beach, and Reform California, argue the measure enables overspending and that savings from surplus years should go directly to taxpayers as refunds or tax cuts. We don’t agree.

Prop 2 is an important step for fiscal responsibility and LA Forward recommends you vote YES.

This measure provides permanent funding for schools and health care services by making an existing temporary tax on the top 2% of incomes in California permanent. The increased tax rates (ranging from 10.3%-12.3%) apply to single filers who earn above $371,000 and above $743,000 for joint filers. The tax initially approved by voters in 2012 and extended in 2016 is set to expire in 2031. It generates billions of dollars annually in state revenue with funds allocated towards K-12 schools and community colleges. Without Prop 3 California would lose a core component of the TK-14 education budget.

Opponents like the California Taxpayers Association argue that California already has some of the highest income taxes and making this tax permanent would further increase the cost of living. However, it is important to clarify that this tax only affects the top 2% of incomes, and Prop 3 is not a new tax but simply an extension of a tax that has been in place for more than a decade. If these top tax rates expire, Californians in the top 2% would pay a lower tax rate than the bottom 20%. Even with these top tax rates the top 1% of Californians pay an average of 12% tax rate, only marginally higher than the 11.7% tax rate that the bottom 20% of Californians pay.

Supporters of Prop 3 include one of the largest teachers unions in the state, the California Teachers Association (CTA). CTA led the campaign to extend the tax in 2016 and led the initiative to qualify this measure for the November ballot. Since the tax was first introduced it has generated $120 billion in revenue for public education. The teachers’ union recognizes that passing Prop 3 is crucial for protecting continued funding for schools to ensure students receive the resources they need, and that it is a simple choice between providing funding to public schools and their students vs a tax cut to the wealthiest Californians if the tax expires.

If the tax rate were to expire, the state would need to replace billions of dollars in funding for schools from other revenue sources, reducing available funding for critical health, housing, and economic security programs. The strain on the state budget would be compounded by the federal budget cuts from H.R.1. coupled with the increasing costs in providing these services due to inflation. The state budget does not currently have the capacity to address all these budget cuts putting millions of Californians at risk of losing critical services.

California Budget and Policy Center has additional analysis here if you want a deep dive.

LA Forward recommends you vote YES on making the millionaires tax permanent so we don’t gut our state’s education system.

Right now, California law prevents the state and most cities and counties from choosing to publicly finance campaigns. Proposition 4 merely removes that prohibition. Local communities, cities, and counties across the state can then decide whether they want a public-financing program and, if so, separately determine how the program works, how much it costs, where the money comes from, and what candidates must do to qualify. A Yes vote on Prop 4 does not automatically spend taxpayer money on campaigns. It gives California communities the ability to make that decision for themselves.

The City of Los Angeles already provides public matching funds to qualifying candidates. San Francisco, Long Beach, Oakland, and Berkeley also have similar public-financing programs because our cities’ charters are exempt from the statewide prohibition. Ultimately, Proposition 4 would have little immediate impact on LA City's existing public finance system. Instead, it would give other cities and counties the ability to consider public-financing systems of their own.

Other communities should be able to activate public financing of their campaigns. Campaigns cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Without public financing, candidates largely have to raise it from private donors. That can give wealthy donors and special interests an outsized role in determining who has enough resources to run a competitive campaign. Public financing creates another alternative, more equitable path. When designed appropriately, public dollars can amplify small donor contributions and help candidates demonstrate that a broad base of ordinary people supports their campaign.

There are guardrails.

Proposition 4 requires candidates receiving public financing to demonstrate a threshold of public support and agree to spending limits as established by the appropriate jurisdiction. The initiative also specifically protects money dedicated to education, transportation, and public safety from being diverted to campaign financing. Prop 4 prohibits candidates that receive public funds from repaying personal loans with public funds, or repaying personal loans with private donations after the campaign ends. And the measure doesn’t allow public funding to discriminate based on party affiliation.

While Prop 4 will not immediately remove mega-spending by big corporations, billionaires, and other special interests from politics, it gives an effective alternative to grassroots campaigns and candidates to compete against candidates that may represent the wealthy interests. We’ve seen the result in Los Angeles of a robust grassroots matching fund system and other cities and counties across the state should be allowed to create their own programs if their citizens want them.

There is a broad coalition of supporters behind Prop 4 including League of Women Voters, CA Clean Money Campaign, Common Cause, ACLU California, CA Teachers Association, CA Working Families Party, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation, Indivisible California Statestrong, and Sierra Club

Opposition comes from conservative groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Taxpayers Association.

LA Forward recommends voting YES on Proposition 4.

Currently, if a recall is initiated for a statewide office, voters are presented with two questions: 1) should the official be recalled; and 2) if yes, who should fill that seat. This process differs from the process when a vacancy occurs for reasons such as resignation or death. In that case, a separate special election may be called for certain offices. If the governor’s office is vacant, the lieutenant governor assumes the office for the remainder of the term.

This ballot measure amends the state constitution to make the recall process align with the process for filling vacancies in statewide offices. It eliminates the second question, which asks voters to immediately choose a replacement if the official is recalled. Instead, if the recall is successful, the subsequent vacancy is filled per the vacancy laws with some exceptions if the governor is recalled.

If the governor is recalled, the vacancy is filled by the lieutenant governor, unless the recall occurs during the first two years of the term and before the nomination period closes for the next statewide election. In that case a special election is held to determine a replacement. If a special election for governor is needed, if no candidate receives a majority of the vote during the primary, the top two vote-getters advance to the general statewide election. The winner of that election serves out the remainder of the unexpired term.

Since 1913, there have been 11 recall elections to remove 9 legislators and 2 governors. Six were successful and removed five legislators and one governor. Because of the uniqueness of California’s current process in asking voters to decide not only whether to recall the official but also to decide the official’s replacement, voters are usually confronted with a long list of hopefuls vying for the seat with little time to learn about their qualifications. In addition, the winning candidate need only receive a plurality of votes (the most votes) and may become governor with very little support. In the 2003 recall of then-governor Davis, there were 135 candidates on the ballot to replace him. In the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, there were 46 candidates. The current process allows someone with only a minority of voter support to nonetheless ascend to the governor’s office. This amendment would ensure that if a recall is successful, the replacement would have the support of a majority of the state’s voters.

Importantly, this amendment makes no change to the requirements to qualify a recall petition for the ballot.

LA Forward recommends that you vote yes on Prop 5.

LA Forward leans toward an opposed position on Proposition 37. Despite noble aims of the measure, its flawed design represents a missed opportunity that could, at worst, widen racial and ethnic disparities in homeownership rates and wealth. Prop 37, if passed, would be a $25 billion bond measure to fund new homeownership housing for “middle-income households.”

Creating more affordable ownership is a laudable goal. Despite its flaws, homeownership continues to be one of the only reliable wealth-building tools for middle-class and low-income communities to achieve financial stability. And California’s sky-high housing costs continue to lock too many households out of homeownership, with our state’s ownership rate (55% of households owning) trailing the national rate of 65%. More assistance is needed to help California homebuyers, especially lower-income ones, access the tools to buy a home.

Unfortunately, the design of Prop 37 falls short of ensuring this funding will open new doors to homeownership for families that might otherwise struggle to achieve it. The program is open to people at 200% of Area Median Income. In Los Angeles County, that’s a household of four earning about $200,000 annually. In San Francisco, that will be a household of four earning $342,000 annually. Those high thresholds, coupled with limits on home purchase prices, could mean that many households who don’t actually need assistance to get a mortgage will use the assistance at the expense of lower-income households being able to buy homes.

Moreover, the structure of the home purchase assistance, a “silent second” mortgage to assist with the downpayment, will add significant interest to monthly housing payments and may push the cost of home purchase further out of reach for lower-income homes.

Under California’s other downpayment assistance programs (e.g. CalHFA’s MyHome Assistance Program and the Dream for All Shared Appreciation), where nothing is due on the “silent second” mortgage until the homeowner sells, refinances, or pays off the first mortgage, the design of Prop 37 seems likely to make homeowners pay the second mortgage back at the same time the first mortgage is being paid back.

According to a detailed analysis from California Budget and Policy Center:

Prop. 37’s approach is likely to require monthly payments. This is because CalHFA would issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds, and by law those bonds must be repaid from the proceeds of the program itself — meaning the principal and interest of the second mortgages CalHFA issues. The second mortgages would need to generate steady, ongoing revenue to pay the debt from the revenue bonds. Language in the measure also states “a borrower may request a temporary hardship deferral of monthly interest payments on its middle-class homeownership loan,” further alluding to its intended structure.

Under Prop. 37, the second mortgage payment could also likely carry higher interest rates above conventional first mortgage rates. Although the measure states the intent to provide below-market downpayment assistance financing, it doesn’t guarantee it. The interest rate on the second mortgages would ultimately depend on the terms under which the bonds are issued and market conditions at the time of implementation, which are largely outside CalHFA’s control.

Revenue bonds that finance second mortgages are inherently riskier for investors because if a homeowner defaults, the first mortgage gets repaid before the second, leaving the bond investors more exposed to loss. Investors may therefore require a higher return to compensate for that additional risk, which could increase the interest rate on the second mortgage. This means Prop. 37’s second mortgage rate could land above the roughly 6.5% conventional first-mortgage rates buyers already face today. CalHFA wouldn’t set the actual rate or terms on the second mortgage until implementation, so the interest rate cannot be known before voters decide on Prop. 37.

Ultimately, while Prop. 37 could help get homebuyers to a 20% downpayment to avoid private mortgage insurance, the monthly repayment costs for the second mortgage could erode much of the benefit the downpayment assistance was meant to provide.

Taken together, the program is likely to be more accessible to upper middle-income households, a disproportionately white group of Californians. Racial disparities around homeownership and wealth holdings may grow wider. This is one of the reasons that groups like ACCE and the League of Women Voters oppose Prop 37.

Finally, and critically, the bond measure cannot be used to purchase existing homes, but must be used on newly-constructed homeownership housing. While new stock is needed, this could fuel the construction of more suburban subdivisions that fuel sprawl and endanger California’s fragile climate progress.

While the measure is widely supported and is very likely to pass, LA Forward joins with the League of Women Voters, ACCE and other groups in suggesting you vote no on this proposition.

Proposition 38 would allow the state to issue up to $8.4 billion in bonds specifically for research into immunology, the study of the body’s immune system, and immunotherapy, therapies that can support the body’s immune system in fighting diseases more effectively. Half of the money would be required to fund research on Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and heart disease. Half of the money would go to a single institute specializing in immunology and immunotherapy and would be selected by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). CDPH would select the institute based on explicit criteria listed in the proposition, including that the institute have an established collaboration with a University of California university. The other half of the bond money would be distributed to institutes as selected by a council, made up of seven representatives from the University of California system and ten to fifteen other California based nonprofits and colleges. This council would select which of their member organizations would receive the funds. Best faith efforts must be made to purchase at least half of all supplies necessary for the research from California based companies.

Ten percent of any revenue generated by this research, such as marketable treatments from the immunotherapy research, would be paid back to the state to cover the cost of the bond plus interest. If the bond is fully paid off, the state would continue to collect the revenue and reinvest the money into additional immunology and immunotherapy research. Additionally, any therapy that is developed and purchased by a California patient would have to be offered with a 20% discount. This bond would cost the General Fund an additional $500 to $600 million annually over 20 years.

As former LAT opinion editor Paul Thornton explains in depth at Golden State Report, it is deeply troubling that the vast majority of this government funding would go to one specific institute - the brand new California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. Two of that institute’s co-founders have contributed more than $20 million to the Yes on Proposition 38 campaign. That doesn’t look great. We don’t think it makes sense for a research organization that isn’t even open yet to have access to this much government funding.

According to Thornton:

There’s a better option to fund important research: Senate Bill 895 by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), which awaits Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. It would put a $7.5-billion bond measure on the ballot in 2028 to fund competitive science and health research grants in the state.. passing Proposition 38, a gargantuan funding source for a single field, could sour voters on a better bond measure to fund a wider range of research in an open, competitive manner.

We join with the League of Women Voters, Courage California and a growing number of editorial boards to recommend you vote NO on Prop 38.

Do you want to make it harder to vote? Do you want it to take even longer to count ballots? Do you want to be told how to vote by the wealthiest enclaves in this state and a lot of people out of state? Do you want to follow the lead of a Republican state assemblymember who has recently been accused by his own state party of making a “calculated deception” to mislead Republican voters?

Prop 39 might be for you.

Proposition 39 seeks to “prohibit citizens from voting unless they present government issued identification.” Mail ballots would have to require the last four digits of a designated government-issued identification and in-person voting would have to present a government ID. And the neat part is it would still require legislative action, like even defining which government IDs may be used. All the chilling effect of any voter ID requirement, with a little boost of voter suppression through confusion.

Prop 39 seeks to address a phantom issue. Champions for voter ID struggle to find examples of voter fraud in California. The Heritage Foundation, long-time advocate of voter ID laws, can cite only 71 examples in a database covering 1982 to 2025, and only two were instances of “alien” (non-citizen) voting Two instances of non-citizen “voter fraud” in a time period where 416 million votes have been cast in primary and general statewide elections, or a chance of one in 208 million.

And the cost won’t just be the Legislative Analyst Office estimate of as much as hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, it’ll drastically suppress votes in California. Getting so much as getting “one digit wrong” could mean your ballot being thrown out, to say nothing of the increased threat of identity theft.

Who else agrees that Prop 39 is terrible? Its own supporters. They sued AG Rob Bonta over his framing of Prop 39 for just specifying if you can’t provide an ID, you can’t vote. Initially, it stated Prop 39 “establishes additional voter identification and citizenship verification requirements”, and now states it “prohibits citizens from voting unless they present government issued identification. The difference is obvious: the former also describes what happens should Prop 39 pass, and the original framing did not.

And who are its supporters? It’s financially backed by the wealthiest enclaves of California – nearly a third of the $15 million in support is from just Alameda, Newport Beach and Agoura Hills – with over a third of the $15 million coming from out of state.

A chief proponent of Prop 39, Republican state assemblyman Carl DeMaio, ironically, was recently sent a cease-and-desist letter from the California Republican Party, accusing him of “a calculated deception of California’s Republican voters,” by co-opting the party’s brand for his own group “Reform California” As the saying goes, accusation is often a form of confession.

The good news is it would appear this new framing is helping California voters realize the consequences of Prop 39. Berkeley IGS polled the question in March and April of this year, phrasing Prop 39 to registered voters as Yes on Prop 39 wants it to appear, and then again a few weeks ago in August to likely voters as it will appear on the ballot, after Attorney General Rob Bonta won in court to keep the Proposition’s retitling. It went from +17 in support of Prop 39 in April, to -9 in early August, though 7% are still undecided. That is a worryingly close margin.

For additional analysis, read this piece by former LA Times Editorial Editor, Mariel Garza, at Golden State Report.

Prop 39 is conspiracy theory as policy. It’s led by a dishonest actor his own party doesn’t trust, and is backed by non-Californians and the wealthiest residents of this state who, my fellow Angelenos, want to suppress your right to vote. It’s bringing the Trump and MAGA agenda straight to California and if they win here, they won’t stop until they win everywhere.

LA Forward urges you to Vote No on Prop 39.

Billionaire tax.

Proposition 40 would issue a one-time 5% tax on taxpayers who have accumulated wealth and covered assets, including trusts, capital stock, and bonds, in excess of $1 billion. This measure would make the tax retroactive to billionaires who lived in the state on January 1, 2026, and would allow the tax to be paid across five equal installments starting in 2027. The taxes, and any subsequent interest, would be deposited into a newly created Billionaire Tax Reserve Fund, with 90% designated for health care, and 10% designated for education and food assistance. Revenues are expected to be between $40 and $100 billion over the five-year life of the tax, and would be used to fund Medi-Cal and other health coverage for 15 million Californians, access to CalFresh, CalFAP, CalFood, and public education initiatives for K–12 and community college systems.

Prop 40 would be undermined by two competing initiatives that we recommend voters oppose: Prop 41 to audit new tax spending and Prop 42 to prohibit new personal property tax and retroactive taxes. Both propositions are funded by billionaires to avoid the Prop 40 wealth tax and any future wealth taxes. If all three measures pass, Prop 40 must win a higher number of votes than Props 41 and 42 to become law.

Why voting YES on Proposition 40 matters:

The Trump administration’s H.R. 1, often referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill, established ongoing cuts to both CalFresh and Medi-Cal, which began in July 2025 and will continue through October 2028. Medi-Cal cuts include shifting administrative program costs to the state, freezing Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented adults, reducing the full scope of medical coverage for immigrants and establishing new managed-care provider payment limits. H.R. 1 cuts could cost California $2.3B to $5.1B per year. VOTING YES on Prop 40 will prevent 1.3 million Californians from losing Medi-Cal coverage, stop the closure of more essential hospitals and clinics, and keep health-care workers employed.

Billionaires living in California were direct beneficiaries of H.R. 1 federal tax cuts for the wealthy that were subsidized by historically high cuts to Medicaid and other vital services across the country. VOTING YES on Proposition 40 will allow California to recoup those funds and reinvest them directly into a severely threatened public health system.

This one-time tax would affect about 250 billionaires with $2 trillion in total wealth living in California. VOTING YES on Prop 40 would allow California to deliver widespread health and education access to the majority while increasing the tax burden of a very small subset of residents.
Top supporters of Proposition 40:

The committee in support, Save California Health Care and Public Education, is sponsored by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).

Proposition 40 also has the endorsement of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Ro Khanna, Courage California, California Democratic Party, Democratic Socialists of America, UNITE HERE Local 11, Teamsters California, and the National Union of Healthcare Workers.
Top opposition to Proposition 40:

Prop 40 is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Teachers Association, United Domestic Workers, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the California Medical Association.

Opponents argue that this one-time tax is a short-term solution to a long-term problem, and that it risks significant collateral effects. While this tax would bring in critical revenue over five years, there is no meaningful plan to replace those funds in the medium- and long-term. Under these circumstances, the very health and education programs Proposition 40 seeks to boost would see budget cuts and cancellation in the years after the tax funds dry up, if the H.R. 1 cuts are allowed to continue through the 2029 implementation timeline designed by federal Republicans.

Some Prop 40 opponents argue that the initiative is unfair, restricting 90% of funding to health care instead of directing revenue into the state’s General Fund to support public programs across the board.

Opponents also outline concerns that this tax could incentivize billionaires to leave the state and take their businesses and capital with them. This result would impact the state’s economy, stall job growth, reduce general tax revenues in the years to come, and make California less competitive and attractive to future business investments.

The No on Prop 40 campaign is predominantly funded by billionaires through their Building a Better California political action committee (PAC), which is also funding Yes on Prop 41 and Yes on Prop 42 to undermine Prop 40, and Yes on Prop 45 to take away community-centered environmental protections. The PAC has spent over $20M to oppose Prop 40. The top PAC and direct No on Prop 40 contributors:- Sergey Brin, co-founder and board member of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), has contributed $82M to the PAC. He has an estimated net worth of $253B. Notably, he moved his primary residency to Reno, Nevada, in December 2025.
- Chris Larsen, co-founder and executive chairman of Ripple, has directly contributed $10M individually and from Ripple, as well as an additional $2.5M to the PAC. He has an estimated net worth of $12.6B.
- John Doerr, chairman of Kleiner Perkins, has contributed $10M to the PAC. He has an estimated net worth of $21.9B.
- Michael Moritz, partner of Sequoia Capitol, has contributed $7.5M to the PAC. He has an estimated net worth of $8.1B.
- Patrick Collison, co-founder of Stripe, has contributed $7M to the PAC. He has an estimated net worth of $17.5B.

Proposition 41 is designed to undercut Proposition 40, the tax on billionaires to fund health care and other services, by prohibiting the state from enforcing Prop 40 if it passes with fewer votes than Prop 41. Prop 41 would also establish two audit requirements for tax measures that are on the state ballot. The first requirement would be an audit of any tax-related ballot measures that have gathered 25% of the required signatures to qualify for the ballot; the audit findings would be included in the state voter-information guide. The second would require any state law or ballot initiative that establishes a new tax after January 1, 2026, to be subject to state audits every four years. Proposition 41 also includes a clause that would not allow for any new taxation that isn’t subject to the Gann Limit, which is the state’s spending cap. This requirement would effectively narrow voters’ ability to target future funding initiatives toward specific programs. Exceeding the state funding limit can trigger tax refunds and limit funding to critical state programs.

Proposition 41 is one of three related bills on the November ballot, alongside Proposition 40 and Proposition 42. Propositions 41 and 42 seek to create a constitutional and legal path to blocking the implementation of Proposition 40 and any future legislation like it. In the event that multiple measures pass, the one with the most votes will ultimately be implemented.

Why voting NO on Proposition 41 matters:

Proposition 41 would make any future attempt at passing special taxes more difficult by requiring an expensive, time-consuming audit prior to an election. VOTING NO allows voters the continued ability to directly determine the necessity and acceptability of any proposed special tax. 

In Proposition 40, the revenue generated by the billionaire tax would be spent on health care and other services without being subjected to the Gann Limit, the state spending cap. These programs have seen dramatic cuts by congressional Republicans in the last year, and Proposition 41 will eliminate the opportunity for California voters to backfill specific program funding at scale. VOTING NO will ensure that Californians can continue to pass taxation measures that direct funds to programs most in need of support without triggering mandatory refunds.
Top opposition to Proposition 41:

SEIU-UHW West, which is sponsoring Proposition 40, has been critical of Proposition 41 as a cynical attempt to confuse voters into voting against the billionaire tax. They argue that the primary intent of this measure is to help billionaires avoid paying their fair share, not to conduct meaningful audits of tax-related amendments.

Opponents of Proposition 41 view it as not only obstructive of the current attempt to tax billionaires, but also as a long-term blockade of progressive tax efforts in the state. Its passage would limit future attempts to expand the use of tax dollars across programs and projects, and diminish voters’ capacity to determine fiscal solutions to ongoing budget gaps and needs across the state.
Top supporters of Proposition 41:

Proposition 41 is supported by Building a Better California, which is largely funded by tech and finance executives, many of whom would be subject to the billionaire’s tax outlined in Proposition 40 if it were to pass. The committee has raised over $48 million from Building a Better California, and has the support of Google founder Sergey Brin.

Supporters argue that the audits required under Proposition 41 would create greater transparency around the use of special tax dollars for voters and communities, and would allow a clearer lens into the distribution and benefits created by these dollars.

Proposition 42 is designed to undercut Proposition 40, the tax on billionaires to fund health care and other services by prohibiting the state from enforcing Prop 40 if it passes with fewer votes than Prop 42. Proposition 42 would change the California Constitution to bar any future new taxes on retirement savings, individual assets, and personal savings, and any retroactive taxes, like what is proposed in Prop 40. If passed, these limits on taxation would be in effect as of January 1, 2026, and would include an exemption for taxes established by the California State Legislature in response to a declared statewide emergency, like floods, fires, or fiscal crises.

Proposition 42 is one of three related bills on the November ballot, alongside Proposition 40 and Proposition 41. Propositions 41 and 42 seek to create a constitutional and legal path to blocking the implementation of Proposition 40 and any future legislation like it. In the event that multiple measures pass, the one with the most votes will ultimately be implemented.

Why voting NO on Proposition 42 matters:

Proposition 42 would make any future attempt at passing special taxes more difficult by eliminating the ability to levy those taxes on certain kinds of wealth, like retirement savings and individually owned assets. VOTING NO gives voters the continued opportunity to directly vote on any proposed special wealth tax. 

In Proposition 40, wealth eligible for taxation includes covered assets, and the revenue from that tax would be spent on health care and other social service programs in the state. These programs have seen dramatic cuts by congressional Republicans in the last year, and the passage of Proposition 42 will eliminate the opportunity for California voters to access the resources needed to backfill this specific program funding at scale. VOTING NO will ensure that Californians can continue to pass targeted and strategic taxation measures to direct funds to the programs most in need of support.
Top opposition to Proposition 42:

SEIU-UHW West, which is sponsoring Proposition 40, has been critical of Proposition 42 as a cynical attempt to confuse voters into voting against the billionaire tax. They argue that the primary intent of this measure is to help billionaires avoid paying their fair share, not to create meaningful tax reform.

Opponents of Proposition 42 view it as not only obstructive of the current attempt to tax billionaires, but also as a long-term blockade of progressive tax efforts in the state. Its passage would limit future attempts to expand taxation for the wealthy, and diminish voters’ capacity to vote on fiscal solutions to ongoing budget gaps and needs across the state.
Top supporters of Proposition 42:

Proposition 42 is supported by Building a Better California, which is largely funded by tech and finance executives, many of whom would be subject to the billionaire’s tax outlined in Proposition 40 if it were to pass. The committee has raised over $48 million from Building a Better California, and has the support of Google founder Sergey Brin.

Supporters argue that Californians should not be taxed on their financial portfolios and associated assets.

Proposition 43 limits local voters' ability to fund essential local services and gives even more power to corporations. LA Forward strongly recommends a NO vote.

Prop 43 makes it harder for communities to come together and provide critical funding to support fire departments and wildfire prevention, fix local roads, staff our local schools or backfill federal health care cuts.

Communities around California are passing local measures to fund essential local services. Prop 43 lets a small minority block that funding, even when a clear majority of voters are supportive.

Today, when voters put a local funding measure on their own ballot, a majority decides. Under Prop 43, just one third of voters could block what two out of three neighbors vote for.

If Prop 43 had been the law, California communities would have lost nearly $3 billion a year in funding for firefighters, 911 response, childcare, homelessness solutions, street repair, parks, and libraries. And it does not lower anyone's taxes.

Making it harder to pass local ballot measures only empowers the corporations who don't want to pay their fair share. Corporations already have too much power in our elections. Prop 43 gives them even more. When voters try to pass local ballot measures to make corporations pay their fair share, the corporations would only need one third of the vote to block it. Prop 43 protects the powerful few at everyone else's expense.

The measure is backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Currently, to pass a new tax revenue measure put forward by a local legislative body such as a city council, two-thirds of voters must support the measure for it to pass. However, when citizen groups gather signatures to put a measure on the ballot, it only needs a majority of votes, or 50% plus one vote to pass.

It is virtually impossible, in an age of polarized politics, to get two-thirds of voters to pass anything. But many citizen-led measures have moved forward with resounding majorities of votes. Los Angeles County’s Measure A to fund services to address homelessness and affordable housing to keep people housed dozens of measures across the state have all advanced in recent years with strong majorities of voters in the upper fifties and low sixties supporting, but still falling short of that 66.67% threshold.

Many of California’s problems in education, housing, and social services can be traced to the passage of Prop 13 in 1978 (thanks to Howard Jarvis), when property taxes were capped, leading to massive challenges in the funding of local schools and services. As a result, many cash-strapped local jurisdictions have turned to sales tax measures, transfer taxes, and other measures to keep their critical services afloat. Prop 43 would make it even harder to keep funding abreast of California’s needs. This is one of the worst propositions on the ballot.

For a deep dive, check out the California Budget and Policy Center’s write-up.

With federal revenue to California more uncertain than ever under a Presidential administration that plays politics with disaster relief funding, and billionaires launching a counter revolt on the ballot to try and hoard their ballooning wealth, LA Forward is proud to join with the League of Women Voters, California Labor Federation, the California Teachers Association, the League of California Cities, and many others in urging you to vote NO on Prop 43.

Clinic spending on patient care.

Proposition 44 would impose a one-size-fits-all spending requirement on nonprofit community health centers, putting additional financial pressure on the safety-net clinics millions of Californians depend on for care.

California’s Community Health Centers Are a Critical Part of Our Safety Net

California’s community health centers provide primary care, behavioral health, dental care, and other essential services, particularly for low-income, uninsured, and medically underserved Californians. Approximately 7.8 million Californians receive care through a network of roughly 2,000 community health center sites across the state. These clinics have played a critical role in reducing disparities in access to health care.

Proposition 44 Imposes a One-Size-Fits-All Spending Requirement

Proposition 44 would require nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers to spend at least 90% of their revenue on qualifying program services, and the Attorney General would be responsible for determining which expenses count toward that threshold.

Clinics that fall short would generally have to pay the difference to the state as a penalty. While clinics could recover those funds if they later comply and could seek temporary waivers in certain circumstances, the fundamental problem remains: Proposition 44 imposes a rigid spending formula on a diverse network of clinics with very different patients, facilities, staffing models, and operating costs.

A 90% Requirement Could Weaken Clinics Instead of Strengthening Them

Running a community health center requires more than paying for direct clinical care. Clinics must maintain facilities, invest in technology, administer complex public health programs, recruit and train staff, comply with regulatory requirements, and maintain the infrastructure necessary to deliver care.

Proposition 44 risks treating some of these necessary costs as excessive overhead. The Legislative Analyst’s Office acknowledges that clinics unable to meet the requirement could close, although the number that could be affected is uncertain. An economic analysis estimates that Proposition 44 could result in $1.7 billion in penalties in its first year and leave 88% of affected clinics operating at a loss.

Clinic closures or service reductions would ultimately be felt by patients through longer waits, fewer places to receive care, and potentially more people delaying treatment until health problems become serious enough to require an emergency room.

We Should Reinforce the Safety Net, Not Put It at Risk

Proposition 44 is sponsored by SEIU-UHW (backers of all those dialysis clinic props), which argues that community clinics receive billions in public funding and should be required to devote more of those resources to patients rather than executive compensation and administrative expenses. Greater transparency and accountability for public health care dollars are worthwhile goals.

But Proposition 44 is the wrong mechanism. Community health centers have worked too hard and come too far in expanding access to care for California’s most vulnerable communities to put that progress at risk through an inflexible spending formula.

It’s one thing for SEIU-UHW to seek regulations for wildly profitable dialysis clinics run by exploitative companies, it’s another thing entirely to go after community clinics. This was a bad mistake on the part of our friends in labor.

Read more analysis from our friends at Golden State Report.

At a time when community health providers are already facing significant financial uncertainty due to federal funding cuts, California should be strengthening its health care safety net and not creating another constraint that could reduce access to care. LA Forward recommends that you vote no on Proposition 44.

Proposition 45 makes major revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the 1970 state bill that mandates a process for including environmental protection in the approval process of developments throughout the state. For a broad variety of projects deemed “essential” Prop 45 changes and limits both the CEQA review process by public agencies and the court review process for CEQA lawsuits. It also, again for “essential” projects, establishes time limits for CEQA review, public comment, and CEQA litigation. LA Forward recommends voting “no” on Prop 45.

CEQA approval and CEQA lawsuits create delays and expenses for building projects and, for this reason, the law has long drawn the ire of developers and corporate interests. This California Chamber of Commerce-led proposition seeks to make building an expansive array of projects in the state easier and less time consuming by slashing the hurdles imposed by CEQA. The Yes campaign promotes the proposition as a way to reduce the cost of living by lowering costs and delays for important infrastructure projects, including housing. Beyond the business community, Prop 45’s coalition includes tech executives, developers, the hospital and health system lobby, and the water utilities. Top funders include Google cofounder Sergey Brin’s Building a Better California and the California Building Industry Association.

California needs infrastructure and it needs housing, and there are legitimate reasons to consider CEQA reform. Indeed, the state legislature passed and Gavin Newsom signed two major reforms in 2025 – AB 130 and SB13 – that streamlined review for many housing projects and exempted infill housing from CEQA review entirely.

The answer to the reform impulse, though, is not a Chamber of Commerce rewrite of a bedrock standard for environmental protection.

The Chamber’s talk of “red tape” obscures the real dangers posed by taking short cuts in environmental review. From June’s Lineage Logistics fire in Boyle Heights and the chemical leak and near-explosion last May at GKN Aerospace in Garden Grove, to the decades-long lead contamination from the Exide Technologies plant in southeast Los Angeles, our region has experienced the devastating human and financial costs of corporate environmental damage. CEQA provides key public oversight over projects that might poison our water, destroy ecosystems, and fill neighborhood air with emissions.

Prop 45’s approach to this crucial government function is to add rigid timelines; to replace a public agency’s consideration of multiple project alternatives with a single, applicant-developed alternative; to tell courts which environmental studies they can take into account; to restrict democratic participation by limiting the length of public comment to 45 days maximum; and to reduce the list of native tribes deemed worthy of consultation. CEQA offends corporate interests precisely because it is a strong tool that protects the environment. Whatever legitimate critiques there may be, and whatever reforms we might consider, CEQA’s real ability to protect our environment must remain. The solution is not Prop 45’s drastic corporate rewrite.

Prop 45 is opposed by the Democratic Party of California, climate groups, environmental justice organizations, organized labor, and civil rights groups. Top funders of the No campaign include Clean and Healthy California, Sponsored by Environmental Organizations, the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, and the District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity. For labor, it should be noted, tied in with their support is the added feature that CEQA has become a lever used to negotiate with and secure concessions from developers. The No campaign focuses on environmental harms, the cost to taxpayers, and the suppression of community voices and participation. These are valid critiques. With respect to CEQA’s price tag, the administrative cost to the state, as the Legislative Analysts Office has written, would likely increase in the short term as public agencies adapted to the new law. It appears likely, though, that they would then decrease once the system of quick timelines and limited environmental review established itself. The potential costs to the state in environmental impact and public health, on the other hand, are quite high.

Because of the considerable harms represented by 45, especially those to our environment and public health, LA Forward urges you to vote NO.