California propositions 2026 put 14 statewide measures on the November 3 ballot. Voters decide a one-time 5 percent tax on billionaires, a voter-ID requirement, housing bonds, tax limits, and more. Five measures came from the Legislature (Props 1–5). Nine qualified by petition (Props 37–45).
The same ballot also features an open race for governor because Gavin Newsom is term-limited, plus every other statewide executive office. Below is a clear breakdown of every proposition, what a yes or no vote means, and why several have drawn national attention.
How many California propositions are on the 2026 ballot?
Fourteen. The California Secretary of State’s official list confirms the full set. Numbers jump from 5 to 37 because earlier measures were withdrawn or reserved. Ballotpedia and CalMatters both track the same 14 for November 3, 2026.
The highest-profile fights center on taxes. Proposition 40 (the billionaire tax) has generated the largest campaign spending of any measure this cycle. Propositions 41 and 42 were written as counters to it. Proposition 43 restores a two-thirds vote for certain local special taxes. Proposition 39 would add a voter-identification requirement.
The tax propositions: 2, 3, 40, 41, 42 and 43
Tax questions dominate the ballot. Six measures deal with state or local revenue in some form.
Proposition 40: the one-time billionaire tax
Proposition 40 is the measure most people mean when they search for California propositions 2026. It would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of individuals and trusts that held more than $1 billion and were California residents on January 1, 2026. The tax is due in 2027. Taxpayers may spread payments over five years at a higher cost (a 7.5 percent annual charge on the unpaid balance is commonly cited in analyses). Real estate, pensions, and most retirement accounts are generally excluded. Ninety percent of the revenue must go to health-care programs; the rest goes to education, food assistance, and administration of the tax. Existing constitutional spending limits and school-funding formulas would not apply to this money.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates temporary revenue in the “tens of billions of dollars” spread over several years and notes a possible ongoing drop of less than $1 billion a year in income-tax collections from billionaires. Supporters (including SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and Sen. Bernie Sanders) cite figures near $100 billion and say the money is needed to offset federal health-care cuts. Opponents, including Gov. Newsom and several billionaires, argue the tax will drive high earners and their future income-tax payments out of the state. Independent estimates vary widely; some academic work puts net collections after avoidance and departures in the $28–36 billion range and warns of larger long-term losses. Because Propositions 41 and 42 can nullify key parts of it if they also pass, the practical effect depends on more than one vote.
The residency cutoff of January 1, 2026 is already past, so the measure is partly retroactive by design. Valuation is generally as of December 31, 2026. The campaign against it has been among the most expensive in recent California history.
Propositions 41 and 42: the counters to the billionaire tax
Proposition 41 would require that new state taxes count under the existing state spending limit and would mandate audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on personal property (including financial assets) and certain retroactive taxes. Both were placed on the ballot largely to block or constrain Proposition 40. A yes vote on either can undermine or invalidate the wealth tax even if Proposition 40 itself passes. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and other taxpayer groups support both.
Proposition 3: making the high-income tax permanent
Proposition 3 would make permanent the temporary top marginal income-tax rates first approved by voters in 2012 (Proposition 30) and extended in 2016 (Proposition 55). Those rates are currently set to expire after 2030. The revenue is dedicated largely to K-12 schools and community colleges, with a share for health care. Supporters say the money has become essential for education funding. Opponents note that California already has the highest state income-tax rates in the country and argue that “temporary” increases have a way of becoming permanent.
Proposition 2: raising the rainy-day fund cap
Proposition 2 would raise the cap on the Budget Stabilization Account (the rainy-day fund) from 10 percent to 20 percent of general-fund revenue and exclude certain deposits from the state spending limit. The stated goal is to smooth revenue swings caused by capital-gains and high-income taxes. Critics say it does not restore earlier limits on spending and could allow larger budgets without corresponding discipline.
Proposition 43: two-thirds vote for local special taxes
Proposition 43 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that would restore the two-thirds voter-approval requirement for local special taxes (taxes earmarked for a specific purpose) even when those taxes are proposed by citizen initiative. Under Proposition 13, local governments already need two-thirds approval for special taxes. After the California Supreme Court’s 2017 Upland decision and later appellate rulings, citizen-initiated special taxes have been allowed to pass with a simple majority. Proposition 43 closes that gap starting January 1, 2027. It does not repeal taxes already approved and does not change the threshold for general taxes. It also bars new ad-valorem property taxes beyond existing constitutional limits. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association supports it as a restoration of Proposition 13 protections; opponents argue it makes it harder for local voters to fund services such as fire protection and transit.
Housing measures: Propositions 1 and 37
Two measures focus on housing.
Proposition 1 (Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act) would authorize $11.25 billion in general-obligation bonds. Roughly $1.25 billion is allocated to veterans’ housing programs; the rest supports multifamily rental housing, homeownership assistance, and related affordability programs. Bonds are repaid with interest from the general fund, so the total cost over time is higher than the face amount. A yes vote authorizes the borrowing; a no vote does not.
Proposition 37 would create a loan program for middle-income buyers of qualified new homes, funded by up to $25 billion in revenue bonds repaid by the borrowers rather than by general taxes. Eligible buyers would generally be California residents occupying the home, meeting income limits, and paying a minimum down payment. The program is limited to new construction. Supporters say it helps middle-income households enter the market; critics question the scale, the restriction to new homes, and the risk of defaults in a downturn.
Voting and election measures: Propositions 39, 4 and 5
Proposition 39 would require government-issued identification to vote in person and the last four digits of a designated government ID number on mail-ballot envelopes. Mail ballots missing a matching number would be invalidated. The state would be required to offer a free voter-ID card on request and to use government data to verify citizenship of registered voters, with annual public reporting. California currently verifies identity mainly by signature on mail ballots and requires identification at registration. Supporters (including Assemblymember Carl DeMaio and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) say the change increases confidence and brings California in line with the majority of states. Opponents (including the ACLU and League of Women Voters) argue it creates barriers for eligible voters and will cost tens to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The measure is self-executing if it passes, with implementing details left to the Legislature.
Proposition 4 would repeal the long-standing ban on public financing of election campaigns, allowing state and local governments to create such programs. Proposition 5 would change the recall process for statewide officers by eliminating the second ballot question that currently chooses a replacement if the recall succeeds. Recalled officials could then run in a subsequent special election.
Health care, research and other measures
Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in general-obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. Half the funds would go to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit institute; the rest would support broader research grants. Critics have described the allocation as self-dealing.
Proposition 44 would require community health clinics to spend at least 90 percent of revenue on program services, with oversight and possible penalties. It is sponsored by a labor organization.
Proposition 45 would modify the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to create faster review and litigation timelines for certain eligible projects. Supporters say it speeds housing and infrastructure; opponents worry it weakens environmental protections.
What the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recommends
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s 2026 voting guide is one of the most-searched resources for California propositions. HJTA recommends:
- Yes on Propositions 39 (voter ID), 41 and 42 (tax constraints), 43 (local special-tax threshold), and 45 (CEQA changes).
- No on Propositions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 37, 38, 40, and 44.
Their stated reasons center on opposition to new or permanent taxes and bonds, support for voter ID, and restoration of two-thirds thresholds for local special taxes. Other groups (CalMatters, the California Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, and the League of Women Voters) offer different recommendations. Voters should read the official arguments in the Secretary of State’s Voter Information Guide.
How the propositions fit together
Several measures interact. A yes on Proposition 40 can be undermined by yes votes on 41 or 42. Proposition 43 changes the rules for future local special taxes but leaves already-approved measures intact. Proposition 3 would lock in revenue that Proposition 2 tries to manage through larger reserves. The open gubernatorial race and the national midterm climate will also shape turnout and the mood of the electorate.
Campaign finance totals for the most contested measures already exceed $1 billion combined, according to Ballotpedia tracking. Proposition 40 alone has drawn more than $170 million in contributions, the large majority in opposition. Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other high-net-worth individuals have publicly funded the No side and, in some cases, changed residency or moved assets before the January 1, 2026 cutoff. Supporters frame the tax as a response to federal reductions in Medicaid and food-assistance funding under the 2025 budget law known as H.R. 1. The Legislative Analyst’s Office has been careful to note both the temporary revenue upside and the risk of lower future income-tax collections, without endorsing a single point estimate.
Proposition 39’s fiscal note is also substantial. The official analysis projects implementation costs between tens of millions and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year for new identification checks, free voter-ID cards, and citizenship-verification work. Because more than 80 percent of California ballots are cast by mail, the four-digit requirement will affect the majority of voters. Election officials will have to match the digits against registration records before counting the ballot; the measure does not explicitly require the same “cure” process that currently applies to signature mismatches.
On housing, both bond measures arrive while the state continues to face high prices and low construction rates. Proposition 1’s $11.25 billion is general-obligation debt that will be repaid from the general fund with interest. Proposition 37’s $25 billion is structured as revenue bonds repaid by borrowers, so the direct taxpayer exposure is different, but the program’s size and restriction to new construction have drawn scrutiny from both taxpayer groups and housing advocates who prefer broader supply reforms.
Where to find official information
The California Secretary of State’s qualified ballot measures page and the official Voter Information Guide are the authoritative sources. The Legislative Analyst’s Office publishes nonpartisan fiscal analyses. Ballotpedia and CalMatters maintain detailed explainers. For local measures (hundreds appear on city and county ballots), check your county elections office or the sample ballot you received by mail.
Mailed ballots postmarked by November 3 are counted if received by November 10 in most counties. Early voting and ballot drop boxes are already available.
California propositions 2026 give voters direct control over taxes, housing, elections, and health-care funding at a scale rarely seen in a single election. The billionaire tax, the voter-ID requirement, and the restoration of two-thirds thresholds for local special taxes are the measures most likely to shape the state’s fiscal and political trajectory after November 3. Checking the official title and summary for each proposition before voting remains the surest way to match your choice to the actual text.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many California propositions are on the November 2026 ballot?
Fourteen statewide measures: Propositions 1 through 5 and 37 through 45.
What is Proposition 40?
A one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of California billionaires who were residents on January 1, 2026. Ninety percent of the revenue is dedicated to health care. Propositions 41 and 42 can limit or nullify it if they also pass.
What does Proposition 39 do?
It requires government-issued identification for in-person voting and the last four digits of a government ID number on mail-ballot envelopes. It also requires citizenship verification of voter rolls and free voter-ID cards on request.
What is the Howard Jarvis recommendation on the 2026 propositions?
HJTA recommends yes on 39, 41, 42, 43, and 45, and no on the remaining nine measures.
When is the election?
Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Mail ballots must be postmarked by that date.