My Recommendations for the California 2026 Ballot Propositions
Proposition 1 — Housing Bonds — Yes
Proposition 1 is a bond issue for 11.25 billion (I always wonder how these numbers get chosen) for housing construction; housing preservation; and mortgage assistance for veterans. As the trade wars are causing inflation, the Fed is upping the prime interest rate and as the risk of stagflation increases, we need to keep the housing market from bottoming out and help in a small way to stabilize rent while increasing housing supply..
I have, in prior years, discussed the problems with bonded indebtedness which mandates mandatory payments each year and part of me wishes that these proposals would just be paid out of the general fund. But the bond system was set up in particular for construction in order to spread costs out over years — kind of like a mortgage. Until something better us proposed, this is how the state makes things. And housing is on the top of our make things list.
No written opposition was submitted to the Secretary of State, but some Republican legislators objected that it doesn’t address the underlying reasons housing is so expensive in this state. It doesn’t, but that’s beside the point.
Proposition 2 — Increase to Rainy Day Fund — Yes
Proposition 2 allows for additional deposits into the rainy day account previously passed by the voters. Also, the measure excludes the deposits and withdrawals from calculations of the spending limitations making it easier to balance the budget in lean years while maintaining vital services. It further allows for larger deposits when revenues are surging.
The opposition is mostly the usual tax posse talking about slush funds for politicians; taxes; government bad; etc. But these are people who would like to cut social services while maintaining road maintenance and other spending which affects them personally.
But the fund is there to maintain stability in government services during economic downturns, instead of making the drastic cuts that certain people actually want to see.
Proposition 3 — Taxes on the Top 2 Percent — Yes
People who make over $371,000 benefit much more from government proportionate to what they pay in taxes. Wealth would not exist without government. The idea that “successful” people are footing the bill for freeloaders is a myth which persists through the class warfare which has been perpetuated by elites as the income and wealth disparities increase exponentially.
In 2012 the voters passed Proposition 30 which increased taxes on the top two percent until 2030. Proposition 3 will make those increases permanent. We’re not talking a huge amount of revenues according to the state analyst — between 5 and 15 billion a year. The tax posse opposition to taxes in general is in play, and they’re bringing up their opposition to bring the country’s train technology into the 21st century and the lack of effectiveness on spending for homeless programs. Government bad. Rich people will leave the state (always threatened yet far fewer than promised).
We need to increase taxes even more and at least restore the rates of the 1950s when America was supposedly “great.”
Proposition 4 — Repeal of Ban on Public Financing of Electoral Campaigns — Yes
California is the only state which explicitly bans local jurisdictions from establishing public financing of election campaigns. It does not establish any such programs, and it does not establish firm rules about what such a plan should look like. It would be up to each local jurisdiction as to most of the rules. Proposition 4 sets broad rules for future state and local public campaign finance programs but leaves many key design decisions to future state and local decision makers. It limits which public funds can be used for campaigns, who can receive the funds, and how the funds can be spent in any future public campaign finance program. Money meant for education, transportation, or public safety cannot be used for campaigns. Candidates can only receive public funds if they show broad-based support in their district and agree to spending limits and other rules. Public funds cannot be used for legal defense fees or fines, or to repay a candidate’s personal campaign loan. State and local governments can design and implement their own programs within the broad rules set by Proposition 4.
Fair Political Practices Commission Would Issue Guidance on Public Campaign Finance Programs. Proposition 4 specifies that the Fair Political Practices Commission is not required to administer or enforce local public campaign finance programs. Rather, state and local government officials could ask the Fair Political Practices Commission for guidance on how to create public campaign finance programs consistent with Proposition 4.
The programs could not be mandatory. Any candidate who wants to raise money on their own and not be bound by the rules has that option. So it won’t necessarily pull big money out of the campaigns.
The opposition laments that the state is not making uniform rules for every jurisdiction. The opposition is mostly made up of conservative interests which would rather leave financing to corporations and the wealthy. Proposition 4 is really only a small step towards freeing politics from the domination of large donors. But it is that.
Proposition 5 — Remove the Power Incentive for Recall Elections — Yes
For those of us old enough to remember the Gray Davis recall election, we remember a circus involving about 60 candidates vying to replace him. Currently recall elections, once ballot qualified, involve two questions. The first is whether the public official should be recalled. The second is who will replace the official should the yes vote prevail.
During the Davis repeal I listened to KGO host Ron Owens make a remarkable and depressing comment. He said that as far as he was concerned, it was simply a new election and Davis was running against Arnold Schwarzenegger and all of the other candidates that included retired actors, porn stars, and comedians. It was a spectacle. But Ron Owens ignored the order of the decisions like some jurors insist on doing when they don’t like the Judge’s instructions. To him, and many others, it wasn’t a question of whether Davis deserved to be recalled. It was about whether one of the replacement candidates would make a better Governor.
A recall should be a drastic measure with the sole consideration being whether the official is fit for office. Not whether there is a better choice. That decision is reserved to scheduled elections held at the conclusion of constitutional terms. However, recall elections have become commonplace whenever someone person or group sees an opportunity to claim power outside of the framework of properly timed elections.
Proposition 5 removes such incentive. The second prong of the recall would be removed and the only decision to be made in a recall election would be the question of fitness of the official. If the recall vote prevails, then what would follow would be the legal mechanism for any other instance in which an official leaves office before completion of the term, such as death, incompacity or resignation. In the case of the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor would assume the office. For other positions, there would be an appointment, or a special election depending on the timing.
This reform is long overdue. It’s not foolproof. Should the Governor’s office and Lt. Governors office be held by members of different parties, it may even encourage a recall attempt. But for the most part, it will reduce them to occasions when there is a concrete issue of fitness rather than a mere political opportunity.
Proposition 37 — Bonds for Down Payment Assistance — Yes
Bonds up to 25 billion dollars would be issued to create a fund for second mortgages to help qualifying home buyers make the down payment to buy a new home. A recipient has to be a California resident prior to application. They must not have an income that is twice the average of the community. There are price limits, which are intended to encourage developers to keep prices down. For the property to qualify, developers have to meet certain quality and labor standards.
I’m really put off by the limitation of the program to new construction. Seems like a program to support developers more than consumers. I wish it was focused on people with lower income, but again that would benefit developers because they wouldn’t have to focus so much on affordability in finding buyers.
The borrowers will be making the mortgage payments and so except for defaults, it could be mostly self-funding.
I don’t think it’s going to greatly impact the housing market. It will help some people. I don’t think we’ll even come close to using the full 25 billion as the qualifying criteria is very narrow. But it won’t hurt anything. So fine.
Proposition 38 — Bonds for Medical Research — Unfortunately, No
Would provide for 8.4 million dollars in bonds to finance very specific research by a very specific institution backed by a billionaire. I don’t agree with other opponents of the proposition on every point. Bonded indebtedness is an essential function to fund long term projects of great importance to the state. I would not object to a bond initiative that represents mitigation of the losses of federal funding for medical research.
Unfortunately, Proposition 38 does not accomplish this goal. The National Institutes of Health funds 332 different condition, research and disease categories. Prop. 38 limits the funding to immunology and immunotherapy. The measure guarantees half the money to an institute tied to a campus healthcare system with a workload volume “greater than 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3,500,000 outpatient visits each year.” Who qualifies? UCLA and its affiliate, the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. It is backed by a billionaire physician and inventor, Gary K. Michelson who is funding the push for Proposition 38.
I have lost friends and relatives to dementia and other issues that may have been caused by immunological deficiencies. I have friends and family members who suffer from immunological issues. I want to see funding for this area of medical science. But I want it for all the other categories as well. And I don’t want to pay for over 8 billion in research earmarked for one institution, no matter how essential and effective it is.
Multiple newspapers have published editorials in opposition to the measure, including the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, the Orange County Register, the San Diego Tribune and several others. Also opposing is the League of Women Voters, mostly due to the language that hides the measure’s true purpose.
I know this position puts me at odds with many other progressives who understandably support public funds for any medical research. But we really need a measure which addresses medical funding policy in a comprehensive way. I can’t vote for Proposition 38.
Proposition 39 — Require Photo ID for Voting — No
Get Eric V. Kirk’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
This has been a talking point of MAGA from the moment Trump lost the popular vote to Hilary Clinton back in 2016. He talked about the “millions of illegal aliens” voting for his opponent. When he came to office, he created an informal commission to root out the “massive criminal voter fraud” across the country. His “commission” found about 15 cases, and more than half of them were committed by Republicans (usually someone voting on behalf of a dead spouse). The committee vanished overnight before Freedom of Information requests could be honored. Still he and other conservative leaders push for solutions to a non-existent problem.
Is there voter fraud? Yes, occasionally. Have non-citizens voted? Yes, mostly because they believed and sometimes were even informed that they had the right. And if you check the lists of convictions on record provided on a database by the conservative Heritage Foundation, you will find that there are a few dozen examples over the past three decades. I have scanned their database for California, Arizona, and Texas and found only one case involving an undocumented immigrant. That is three decades! Perhaps it has happened in other states?
There is no massive voter fraud; certainly nothing that has impacted an actual election race.
But why not require government-issued voter identification anyway? Just in case?
Because not everyone carries photo ID. You will find the internet filled with condescending commentary about how easy it is to obtain ID and how stupid are all the people who do not carry one. Such people including the elderly, the poor, and the young. Today’s political climate is somewhat dictated by angry and hateful commentary stimulated by certain political figures. The concept of imagining that you’re “walking in another person’s shoes” just isn’t in fashion. Everybody has a the perfect solution to all of the problems and obstacles in everyone else’s life. “If you’re too dumb to obtain a government ID, you’re too dumb to vote.” And this from people who claim to oppose the excessive influence of the state all the while trying to hand over more power to the state to violate individual privacy and autonomy.
And the requirement will not eliminate voter fraud. It will simply add another layer to the bureaucracy.
If you have questions about election security, call your county elections department and ask questions. I have spoken to people locally who refuse to call Juan Cervantes — who will be happy to explain it to you. “What’s the point? He’s part of the fraud system.”
If you do make the call you will learn that every voter registration is verified by checking the information with other government departments such as Social Security and the DMV to eliminate prior registrations at different addresses and establish that you are not disqualified due to certain felony convictions or other criteria. The signature taken at the polling place or on your ballot submission envelope, and if there is a question as to a match, you are notified. There is also the opportunity to track your ballot. Over the years, the incidents of people trying to vote only to find out that someone else voted in your place have been extremely rare.
The real goal of Proposition 39 is disenfranchisement; the elimination of mail-in voting (which has improved turnout rates); and reinforcement of an agenda-driven narrative. Please do not indulge it.
Proposition 40 — One Time Tax on the Very Rich — Yes
It would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the approximately 200 billionaires (based on their assets) in the state and is estimated to bring in 100 billion in revenue over 5 years. It will primarily be used for healthcare. It is intended to mitigate losses to federal healthcare spending due to the tax cuts granted at the federal level. The measure is intended to recoup some of those losses from the same people who benefited the most from the federal tax cuts.
The opposition is primarily from tech industry owners who argue that billionaires will leave California (the perennial threat with every progressive measure ever taken in California) and impact tax revenues in the long run. Some health organizations are critical because they weren’t consulted as to healthcare needs.
It’s supported by SEIU, the Teamsters, Bernie Sanders, and after a tough fight, the California Democratic Party. It is opposed by crypto-mogols and the California Business Table. However, more surprising opponents are Planned Parenthood and the CTA.
I understand about the long term concerns if billionaires will really sell off all of their California assets and move away, but then maybe we shouldn’t be so dependent on them in the first place. And the healthcare crisis has been dramatically aggravated by the loss of revenues — premiums are through the ceiling; Dr. Oz is gleefully shutting down rural hospitals in blue states; and medications are out of affordable reach for many in need. Yes, it’s a temporary measure — a gamble that it could provide much needed revenue until the current federal policy insanity is ended.
It’s also essential to send the Democrats in office the message that voters will take matters into their own hands if they don’t pull it together and reverse the course.
Proposition 41 — Bans Exemptions of New Tax Measures from Spending Limits — No
It is a blatant underhanded attempt to indirectly defeat Proposition 40 and limit the voters’ ability to assess taxes by making it less palatable for voters to do so. It would also require audit of new programs, but the State Auditor already audits programs. That’s the person’s job.
The San Francisco Bay Guardian accurately designates this measure as “the Wealth Tax Poison Pill.” On top of the harm it would do to the state, it’s sneaky and dishonest.
Proposition 42 — Prohibits Wealth Taxes — No
Another poison pill measure designed to defeat Proposition 40, but this one would have the effect of eliminating the possibility of wealth taxes altogether.
Government exists primarily to protect wealth. Everything the government does is to allow for the generation and protection of wealth. Government itself historically arose from the establishment of surplus wealth. Even social welfare programs and spending provide a pressure relief valve to prevent revolution.
Therefor, we each benefit from government proportion to the amount of our wealth. It is fair to assess taxes based upon that proportionality. There may be sound policy reasons to avoid many wealth tax proposals. But there should never be a blanket ban in a quasi-democracy.
Proposition 43 — Extension of Proposition 13 — No
Proposition 13 requires a two-thirds vote for any special tax proposed by a constitutional political body such as a Board of Supervisors or City Council. Currently, if the measure is placed on the ballot by a petition of voters, only a simple majority is needed. Special taxes are already regulated by time limitations, requiring a vote to extend them. It is an essential tool to raise funds for schools, emergency services, etc. This is why associations of firefighters, teachers, and nurses oppose the measure, as long as federal and state funds continue to be cut back.
Proposition 44 — Mandates 90 Percent Spending of Nonprofit and Government Health Clinics to 90 Percent — No
It sounds good, but it will lead to the closure of many rural clinics because about 9 out of 10 cannot meet the standards. The resulting fines will put nearly all of them into the red financially within the first year. With hospitals being closed by the federal spending cuts, we can’t afford to mess with clinics this way. Among other issues, the measure would impose onerous reporting requirements. It is very poorly drafted and will result in a slew of severe unintended consequences. Clinics will be penalized for investments like capital projects, new equipment and technology upgrades, disaster prep or even if they put revenue in its budget reserves.
Believe me, I do agree that payment to CEOs of many of these clinics are ridiculously high which cuts into the money available for services. But we need a more well-thought solution.
Proposition 45 — CEQA Reforms — No
Proposition 45 creates new procedures for reviewing certain types of projects that it defines as “essential.”. The proposition (1) tightens time limits for CEQA review, permits, and court challenges; (2) changes parts of the CEQA review process; and (3) changes the court’s review process for CEQA lawsuits. The proposition gives eligible project applicants the option of using the new procedures or existing procedures.
It strictly shortens the time limits for review and court challenges. Forces government agencies to rush their analysis, and allows for bypassing current EIR requirements to speed the process up. And it allows the developer to dictate the process by forcing an agency hearing, ready or not and file a lawsuit with the courts — if an agency does not meet the 365-business-day time limit for finishing the EIR. The proposition also creates a time limit for courts to resolve legal challenges.
There are some provisions I agree with, including requiring the agencies to specify all information that must be included in the application at the front end, and prevents the agencies from constantly moving the goal posts because they dream up new requirements. I don’t believe the agencies should be absolutely excluded from requesting changes with new information, but there should be a compelling interest involved.
And I agree with the requirement that the agency assess potential environmental impacts based on the laws and standards in place at the time the project application is submitted, again limiting the agencies’ ability to move the goalpost late in the game.
And I think the whole development of the alternative project requirement is unnecessarily onerous. I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous requests in this regard, for instance the agency requiring that it be allowed to consider moving a project to property that the applicant doesn’t own. One alternative should be enough.
But I don’t agree with narrowing the input of Native Tribes. I don’t agree with limiting the time for public input. And I don’t agree with the restrictions it would put on the courts, including the current power to stop the project if the applicant strays too far from the law. And it would strictly reduce the criteria courts can consider.
But my main problem with the measure is that it is too complicated for a ballot measure. Most people voting have no clue as to how CEQA works, nor do they understand why certain rules and procedures are in place. I agree that CEQA needs reform, but it should be done by the legislature taking in information from all of the stakeholders and developing the reforms in a comprehensive manner with the policy goals of protecting the environment considered as well as the necessity of expediting certain project.
I also find it hilariously ideological that high speed rail is specifically excluded from “transportation” projects.
If you don’t understand a measure, please don’t vote for it. I doubt that more than five percent of the voters will understand Proposition 45, not because they are lacking in intelligence, but rather because these are extremely complex issues that don’t belong on a “yes” or “no” ballot initiative.
Candidates — I will write a separate piece on local candidates. As for the federal positions? I support the Democrats in this very crucial year.
I did some research on all of the Justices and Judges up for voter confirmation. Though I like some judges more than others, I didn’t find any red flags that would warrant a “no” vote on any of them. If anyone has specific questions about any of them, you know how to reach me.
