14 propositions, 14 decisions: How I'm approaching the 2026 California ballot

Getty Images

Every election year, I write a column about the propositions appearing on the California ballot.

I have always tried to be careful about not telling people how to vote. I believe every voter should read the measures, look beyond the campaign slogans, consider the financial consequences and then make his or her own decision.

But I also believe that if I am going to write about these issues, I should be willing to explain how I am looking at them and how I am voting.

This year, we have a particularly unusual ballot: 14 statewide propositions. Yes, 14!

Some deal with billions of dollars in bonds. Others involve taxes, elections, government spending limits, health care, housing and environmental regulations. Several are complicated enough that the title alone doesn't tell you what you're actually voting on.

That is why I encourage everyone to slow down before marking that little "Yes" or "No" box.

Here is how I am looking at the 14 measures—not as instructions for anyone else, but as a guide to the questions I believe voters should be asking.

Proposition 1 — Borrows $11.25 Billion for Costly Housing Projects

Proposition 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in state general-obligation bonds for housing programs. The state estimates that repaying the bonds would cost roughly $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years.

The argument in favor is straightforward: California has a severe housing affordability problem, veterans need assistance, and the measure would put significant resources toward housing.

The argument against centers on the state's growing debt burden and whether borrowing billions more is the best way to address a problem that has persisted for decades.

The biggest argument is also in the misleading ballot title. The word “veterans” was installed by partisan elected officials to gain the goodwill of voters that we have towards our veterans. But very little of this bond will actually go towards veterans.

For me, the important question is not simply whether California needs more housing. Of course it does. The question is whether this particular costly borrowing program is the right investment and whether taxpayers are getting sufficient value for the cost. I am VOTING NO on Prop 1. ❌

Proposition 2 — Guts State Budget Spending Limit and Cancels Tax Rebates

*DECEPTION ALERT: Appears on your ballot with the politicians’ FALSE ballot title of “Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund.” Proposition 2 changes the state's rules for building budget reserves and paying down certain debts.

Supporters argue that California needs a stronger financial cushion when revenues inevitably decline.

Opponents can reasonably ask whether putting more money into reserves restricts the legislature's ability to address immediate needs.

A friend of mine Jon Fleischman wrote this week that “Proposition 2 is the proverbial lipstick on a pig. The lipstick, in this case, is the very misleading ballot title and summary prepared by elected officials says “Increases State’s Rainy-Day Fund,” reads the official title. Sounds fiscally responsible, doesn’t it? “

Of course, there’s more. Proposition 2 leaves substantially intact the rules allowing politicians to suspend deposits and withdraw money during a declared “budget emergency.” And “emergency” doesn’t mean recession, earthquake or pandemic. It can simply mean politicians approved spending the state can no longer afford. That’s quite a lot to hide behind the words “Rainy Day Fund.” Think bigger piggy bank, but with a big hole in the bottom of it…”

This is ultimately a question of fiscal discipline. I will be VOTING NO on Prop 2 ❌

Proposition 3 — Extending the Tax

*DECEPTION ALERT: Biased title plays up funding for schools and health care without accountability for how the money is spent. It literally will be a huge tax increase.

Makes permanent California’s highest-in-the-nation income tax rates at a time when California is losing employers, jobs and taxpayers to other states and seeing lower tax revenues as a result. Worse, Prop 3 does nothing to reform wasteful spending in the programs it purports to fund, so taxpayers will not see better services. This tax was sold as “temporary” in 2012, extended in 2016 and now politicians want to make it permanent before it even expires. The same people that put this on the ballot are the ones that said this would only be a “temporary tax”. We’ve heard this before.

Supporters argue that the tax provides important and ongoing funding for education and health programs.

Opponents argue that temporary taxes should remain temporary and that California should be cautious about making tax increases permanent. They say we should keep our promises when we make things “temporary”.

The broader question for voters is simple: Should an existing tax increase that was originally designed to have an expiration date become permanent? I will be VOTING NO on Prop 3 ❌

Proposition 4 — Public Financing of Campaigns

Proposition 4 would allow state and local governments to establish public financing programs for political campaigns. Gives Your Tax Dollars to Politicians’ Campaigns

*DECEPTION ALERT: False cost estimate of only a “few hundred thousand dollars each year” when it will cost us taxpayers MILLIONS a year.

Repeals a previously approved ban on public financing of politicians’ campaigns. Voters wisely decided years ago that their tax dollars should never be used to fund the campaigns of politicians, but with Prop 4 the politicians are refusing to take no for an answer. They already tried to sneak this through the legislature in 2016. The courts threw it out and ruled that voters must decide.

Ten years later they’re back, hat in hand, asking to spend your tax dollars on their attack ads. I’m saying the same thing the courts told them and that’s why I’m voting no.

Supporters argue that public financing can give candidates without wealthy donors or large fundraising networks a better opportunity to compete.

Opponents question whether taxpayer money should be used to finance political campaigns at all. I agree. We (California taxpayers) shouldn’t be in the business of financing political campaigns.

For me, this raises an important principle: How much should taxpayers participate financially in the political process beyond their vote? I will be VOTING NO on Prop 4 ❌

Proposition 5 — Recall Elections

Proposition 5 changes the way recall elections for statewide officers work. Under the proposal, recall elections would no longer simultaneously ask voters who should fill the vacancy. Depending on the circumstances, the vacancy would instead be filled through a special election or appointment. It weakens Citizens’ right to recall politicians from Office

Makes it harder to Recall a politician from office and simultaneously replace them with a candidate of the voters’ choosing. Under Prop 5, if the voters recall the Governor, you don’t get to choose the replacement — the office is automatically handed to the political machine’s second-in-command. The decision will be entirely out of the voters’ control.

Supporters argue that this creates a cleaner, more orderly recall process.

Opponents argue that voters who successfully recall an elected official should also have a direct say over the replacement. This was put on the ballot by a former Senator who was recalled making it harder to recall elected officials. I do not think this is a good idea.

This is ultimately a question about the power of the voters and how California structures one of its most important checks on elected officials. I will be voting NO on Prop 5. ❌

Proposition 37 — Middle-Income Homebuyers

Proposition 37 would establish a homebuyer assistance program backed by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds. Eligible buyers could receive assistance toward purchasing qualified newly constructed homes, with the bonds repaid through homeowners' mortgage payments rather than the state's general fund. Borrows $25 Billion for Costly Housing Projects

Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Worse, Prop 37 makes the State of California one of the biggest mortgage lenders in America overnight – and taxpayers are left holding the bag for any losses. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1M per unit! Campaign contributors to politicians also get special contracts under Prop 37.

Supporters see this as a way to help middle-income Californians become homeowners.

Opponents may question whether government should play this large role in financing home purchases and whether the program could influence housing prices.

The important distinction here is that this is not the same type of borrowing as a traditional state general-obligation bond. The proposed bonds would be repaid through the mortgage program. I will be voting NO on Prop 37 ❌

Proposition 38 — Immunology Research

Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research at California research institutes and universities. Public-Private Partnership Bonds for Immunology Research.

Authorizes $8 billion in bonds to support immunology research with the repayment coming from proceeds of cures and treatments. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% BELOW the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's

Supporters argue that California has an opportunity to remain a national leader in medical research and potentially develop treatments that improve or save lives.

Opponents can point to the cost of borrowing and ask whether the state should be financing medical research through bonds rather than allowing private philanthropy and existing institutions to carry more of the burden.

The debate here is essentially about investment: What should government finance today in hopes of producing benefits tomorrow? I will be VOTING YES on Prop 38 ✅

Proposition 39 — Voter Identification

Voter ID to Improve Trust in Elections

*DECEPTION ALERT: Appears on your ballot with the politicians’ FALSE ballot title of “Prohibits Citizens from Voting.”

Prop 39 is a bipartisan solution for voter ID. That’s why it is supported by large majorities of Democratic, Republican and Independent voters. Prop 39 requires cleaning up and auditing of voter rolls and citizenship verification of anyone registering to vote. It keeps voting simple while adding integrity reforms to make voting more secure. The politicians falsely claim Prop 39 prohibits citizens from voting when it will only prevent ineligible individuals from voting.

36 other states already have similar requirements, why shouldn’t California ? Proposition 39 would require voters to present government-issued identification when voting. Under current California law, voter identity is generally established through the voter’s signature.

Supporters argue that identification requirements provide another layer of election security and public confidence. Since we already must use our ID’s for many so many things this shouldn’t be a problem for most.

Opponents argue that additional identification requirements can create barriers for eligible voters who do not have the required identification and that California’s existing procedures already protect election integrity.

This debate goes to a fundamental question: How do we balance election security with maximum accessibility to the ballot? This one seems easy to me. I will be VOTING YES on Prop 39 ✅

Proposition 40 — One-Time Wealth Tax

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on certain taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued above $1 billion. The measure would direct most of the revenue toward health care and the remainder toward food assistance or education-related programs.

Prop 40 is deceptively being sold as the “Billionaire’s Tax” but it is really the “Everybody Tax!” Prop 40 creates the first-in-the-nation Wealth Tax (or Savings Tax) on Californians. Prop 40 contains a provision allowing state politicians to expand the Wealth Tax to everyone without another vote of the public. Prop 40 allows government to tax the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. If you don’t have the cash to pay the Wealth Tax, then you’d be forced to sell some of what you own.

Supporters argue that the wealthiest Californians can afford to contribute more toward major public needs.

Opponents argue that taxing accumulated wealth could encourage wealthy residents and businesses to leave California, potentially reducing future state income-tax revenues. Non partisan analyst have estimated it will COST California approximately $25 million per year. And the funds are also directly towards one industry, the ones who put this on the ballot. Most top elected officials on both sides of the aisle have come out strongly AGAINST this measure.

The state’s fiscal analysis itself says the measure could produce tens of billions of dollars in temporary one time revenue while potentially reducing ongoing income-tax revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars or more annually.

That makes this more complicated than simply asking whether billionaires should pay more taxes. It also seems punitive, unfair and I will be VOTING NO on Prop 40. ❌

Proposition 41 — Audits and the State Spending Limit

Proposition 41 would require additional audits of programs funded by new state special taxes and would restrict the ability to exclude certain new tax revenues from the state’s existing spending limit.

Supporters argue that voters deserve greater transparency and accountability when special taxes are placed on the ballot.

Opponents may argue that the measure adds bureaucracy and could make it more difficult to fund programs voters have already approved.

Prop 41 would make it harder for state and local politicians to impose special taxes on you. Prop 41 requires that all special taxes include audits on all revenues raised and programs funded through the tax to prevent waste, fraud and abuse or diversion of the funds by politicians. Prop 41 also requires that these special taxes adhere to the state’s constitutionally-mandated spending limit. Under California law, when two conflicting measures pass, the one with more votes wins. Even if Prop 40 passes, a bigger yes on Prop 41 cancels it.

At its heart, this is a debate over accountability, transparency and how much government spending should be subject to additional scrutiny. I will be VOTING YES on Prop 41. ✅

Proposition 42 — Personal Property Taxes

Proposition 42 would prohibit the state from creating new taxes on the ownership of financial assets and other personal property, as well as certain retroactive state taxes.

Supporters see the measure as a protection against future taxation of financial assets. They see this as a tax on their savings.

Opponents may argue that constitutional restrictions on future legislatures can limit the state’s ability to respond to changing fiscal circumstances.

This proposition is really about how much flexibility future lawmakers should have versus how much protection taxpayers should have today. I will be VOTING YES on Prop 42. ✅

Proposition 43 — Local Taxes and Prop 13

*DECEPTION ALERT: Appears on your ballot with the FALSE title of “Limits Voters Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services.”

Prop 43 is known as the Save Prop 13— Local Taxpayer Protection Initiative. Prop 43 makes it harder for local politicians to raise your taxes by restoring the two-thirds vote requirement on any local tax measures. It also closes loopholes the politicians have created in Prop 13 to violate the property tax caps that voters originally imposed. Proposition 43 would require two-thirds voter approval for certain local government tax increases.

Supporters argue that higher approval requirements protect taxpayers and ensure that significant tax increases have broad community support.

Opponents argue that requiring two-thirds approval can make it unnecessarily difficult for local governments to fund essential services.

Anyone who has served in local government knows this isn’t an abstract question. Cities constantly have to balance police, fire, roads, parks, libraries and other services against limited revenues. But residents should have a vote in my opinion, and this is what Prop 13 stated until it was subjected to special interest sidestepping it. I will be VOTING YES on Prop 43. ✅

Proposition 44 — Community Health Clinic

Proposition 44 would require certain nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health-care services. Imposes Costly Mandates on Community Health Clinics

Increases mandates and costs on community health clinics, threatening their ability to provide patient care. Clinics that miss the arbitrary 90% mandate pay penalties into a government account and hotwired to a narrow special interest group who is one of the politicians’ biggest campaign contributors.

Trusted healthcare experts warn that Prop 44 would trigger $1.7 billion in penalties in the first year alone and force clinics across California to close their doors.

Supporters argue that nonprofit health-care dollars should primarily be spent providing care.

Opponents may argue that a rigid percentage requirement could interfere with legitimate administrative, staffing, technology, facilities and other expenses necessary to operate a health-care organization.

The question is whether a simple spending requirement creates accountability or creates unintended consequences. I am VOTING NO on Prop 44. ❌

Proposition 45 — CEQA Reform

Proposition 45 would modify California’s environmental review process for certain projects, including housing, transportation, water, health and clean-energy projects.

Reduces regulation and combats frivolous lawsuits that have increased the cost of housing projects. California’s environmental review law (CEQA) has been weaponized to block and delay housing, adding years and millions of dollars to every project. Prop 45 is the first time voters have ever been handed the chance to reform CEQA at the ballot box.

Supporters argue that California needs to build faster and that excessive delays and litigation can prevent needed housing and infrastructure projects. Many say it is long overdue.

Opponents may argue that environmental review exists for a reason and that speeding the process or limiting legal challenges could reduce meaningful environmental protections and public participation.

This may be one of the most consequential propositions on the ballot because it goes beyond a single program or tax. It touches the way California approves major projects. I will be VOTING YES on PROP 45 ✅

Fourteen Propositions Require Fourteen Conversations

After looking at these measures, one thing stands out to me: there are very few simple answers.

Some propositions spend money. Some raise or protect taxes. Some restrict government. Others give government additional authority. Some are about housing. Others are about elections, health care, environmental review or fiscal policy.

And several carry price tags measured in billions of dollars.

That is why I don’t believe voters should make decisions based solely on a clever campaign slogan, a television commercial or even the title printed on the ballot.

Read the official voter guide. Read the Legislative Analyst’s fiscal analysis.

Look at who is supporting and opposing each measure.

Then ask the most important question of all:

What are the consequences if this proposition passes—and what are the consequences if it doesn’t?

I will make my own choices when I cast my ballot. My choices are informed by my experience in local government, my years of public service and, most importantly, my belief that taxpayers and voters deserve accountability.

But my ballot belongs to me, and yours belongs to you.

We don’t have to agree.

That’s the beauty of democracy.

What we should agree on is that 14 propositions deserve more than 14 quick guesses.

They deserve 14 thoughtful decisions. As for me, I will be voting NO on Props 1,2,3,4,5,37,40,44

I will be voting YES on Props 38,39,41,42,43,45.

If you have any questions, feel free to call me on my cell at 562-706-4114.