CA+SF 2026 Ballot Notes · November 3

What it does

Lets the state borrow $11.25 billion for housing. Most of it, $10 billion, would be repaid from the state's main budget (the General Fund). The money would help pay for rental homes and help families buy or repair homes. The other $1.25 billion funds CalVet home loans for veterans, repaid by the veterans' own loan payments ¹.

Yes

The state can borrow the $11.25 billion.

No

The state does not borrow the money ¹.

Required to go to voters. The state constitution requires voter approval for state borrowing. Source

Taxes and bonds. No new tax: the state borrows $11.25B and repays most of it from existing General Fund revenue, so that money is not available for other programs. The $1.25B for veterans' home loans is repaid by the veterans who borrow. Source

Arguments

For

• Over half of renters spend more than 30% of income on rent; the bond funds tens of thousands of subsidized homes ¹.
• No new taxes; it can unlock federal matching funds ¹.

Against

• Some Republican legislators say it is "using veterans to drum up support while actually doing little to serve them" ²; veterans loans are $1.25B of $11.25B ¹.
• Borrowing adds interest (about 15% over paying up front) and $500-600M a year in General Fund payments for 25 years ¹.
• It does not address why housing is costly to build ².

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO): General Fund cost of $500 million to $600 million a year for about 25 years (about 0.25% of the General Fund budget). Total cost is about 15% more than paying up front, inflation-adjusted. The veterans portion has no direct state cost. Funds would subsidize up to 40,000 rental units, about 2,500 farmworker units and 1,200 student beds, and help up to 40,000 households buy or repair homes ¹.

What it does

Lets California save more in its rainy day fund, the state's savings account for bad years. The cap rises from 10% to 20% of the state's main tax revenue. The state must also save more when taxes on investment profits (capital gains) bring in unusually high revenue. Extra required payments on debts like pensions and retiree health, now set to end in 2030, would continue through 2040. Money put into savings would not count toward the state's spending cap until it is taken out ¹.

Yes

The state saves more under these rules.

No

Current savings rules stay ¹.

Required to go to voters. It amends the state constitution, which only voters can do. Source

Taxes and bonds. No tax is raised or cut: the measure requires the state to save more of the tax revenue it already collects. Source

Arguments

For

• Budgets swung from a $100B surplus to a $50B deficit in a few years; a bigger cushion is needed. Supporters say Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has recommended saving more ¹.
• Forces more of revenue windfalls to be banked rather than committed to ongoing spending ¹.

Against

• Deposits would not count toward the 1978 spending limit, making taxpayer rebates for excess revenue less likely ¹.
• Opponents call it a "slush fund": it adds no dedicated money for schools, health or safety ¹.
• Supporters also voted to suspend over $5B in required deposits ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

LAO gives no dollar figure: state reserves would be higher, making budget-balancing somewhat easier in downturns, and the state might make more extra debt payments. For context, the state has about $20 billion in reserves that can be used for any public program ¹.

What it does

Makes permanent a higher income tax on California's top earners that is set to expire after 2030. Voters first approved it in 2012 (Prop 30) and later extended it (Prop 55). The rates, 10.3% to 12.3%, apply to income above about $371,000 for single filers and $742,000 for couples filing jointly. Only the top 2% of taxpayers pay them. Revenue goes 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges ¹.

Yes

The higher rates become permanent.

No

The higher rates end after 2030 ¹.

Taxes and bonds. These Prop 30 (2012) rates, extended by Prop 55 (2016), are already in effect; Yes keeps them permanently, No lets them drop to 9.3% starting in 2031. Only income above the thresholds is taxed at the higher rates, so most filers' taxes are the same either way. Source

Arguments

For

• Not a new tax: keeps rates the top 2% have paid for about 15 years; expiry would cut taxes for the wealthy and risk billions in school and health cuts ¹.

Against

• Turns a "temporary" tax into a permanent one, which opponents call the largest permanent state income tax increase in California history ¹.
• Raises California's cost of living; they say the state has a spending problem, not a revenue problem ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

LAO: maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue, varying with the stock market. Roughly 40% goes to schools and community colleges; the rest goes to health care, reserves and other programs ¹.

What it does

Lifts California's ban on using public money to pay for political campaigns. State and local governments could then set up programs that give candidates public funds. It does not create any program itself. Programs could not use money set aside for education, transportation or public safety, and candidates would have to show broad support and accept spending limits. Charter cities like San Francisco and Oakland are already exempt from the ban. It also triples the top fine for foreign campaign donations ¹.

Yes

Governments may create public campaign funding programs.

No

The ban stays, except in charter cities that opt in ¹.

Required to go to voters. The ban came from Prop 73 (1988), a voter initiative, so only voters can repeal it. The Legislature tried without a vote in 2016, and a court struck that down in 2019. Source

Arguments

For

• Over $1 billion has been spent on state candidate races since 2020; small-donor matching helps candidates compete without wealthy donors ¹.
• It is only an option; each government chooses whether to adopt a program. Supporters cite 14 states and 26 localities with similar systems ¹.

Against

• Opponents say it has no limit on the number of candidates or the amount of public money, and does not bar special-interest money ¹.
• Could divert taxpayer money from schools, safety and health; qualifying criteria are left to future laws ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO): ongoing state cost of a few hundred thousand dollars a year for the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to give guidance. Costs of any future program could be significant but depend on future decisions ¹. Supporters claim as little as $1 per resident per year ¹.

What it does

Changes recalls of state officials. Today a recall ballot asks two questions: should the official be removed, and who should replace them? This drops the second question. If a Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor takes over, either until voters elect a new Governor at a later statewide election (if the recall comes early in the term) or for the rest of the term. A recalled legislator would be replaced by special election, and other officials by the Governor's appointment. The recalled official could run in a special election ¹.

Yes

Recall ballots only ask whether to remove the official.

No

Voters keep picking a replacement on the same ballot ¹.

Required to go to voters. Recall rules are in the state constitution (since 1911), so changing them takes a vote. Source

Arguments

For

• A replacement can win with far less than 50%; the leading 2021 replacement would have had about 28% of recall voters ¹.
• The 2021 recall cost over $200 million and reconfirmed the result ¹.
• Reduces use of recalls to overturn regular elections ¹.

Against

• Takes away voters' power to choose a successor; appointment or special elections would fill seats ¹.
• Seats could sit vacant until a costly special election ¹.
• Opponents say the current system has worked for 100 years ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO): net effect unknown, possibly savings or costs of millions of dollars per recall election, depending on the office recalled and how often recalls occur. A standalone special election to fill a seat would cost millions; a shorter ballot would save millions. Any net effect is under 0.1% of the General Fund budget ¹.

What it does

Creates state loans to help middle-income Californians buy newly built homes. The state housing finance agency (CalHFA) could sell up to $25 billion in bonds, repaid by the homebuyers' loan payments. Loans cover up to 17% of the price; buyers put down at least 3%. Buyers must be state residents for a year, live in the home and earn no more than twice the area's median income. Home prices are capped at roughly $1 million to $1.5 million, depending on the county. Builders can opt into higher labor standards in exchange for different construction-defect rules ¹.

Yes

The state creates the homebuyer loan program.

No

No program is created ¹.

Taxes and bonds. This is not a general obligation bond: the state housing finance agency would sell up to $25 billion in bonds and repay investors from the homebuyers' loan payments. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates no direct state or local costs. Source

Arguments

For

• A 20% down payment is out of reach for most middle-class buyers; the median home price is above $930,000 ¹².
• Supporters say it carries no taxpayer cost, since bond investors fund the loans ¹.

Against

• The state should not be involved in the mortgage lending market ².
• It does not address the underlying causes of high housing costs and could push buyers into more debt ².

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

LAO: no direct state or local costs, because homebuyers' payments repay the bonds. Unknowns include investor demand, how the loans compare with other down payment aid, and whether the program increases construction and homebuying ¹. CalMatters adds that private lenders, not taxpayers, would bear default losses ².

What it does

Lets the state borrow $8.4 billion, repaid from the state budget, for research on the immune system and immune-based treatments. At least $4.2 billion is for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. Half goes to one UC-affiliated nonprofit institute, half to competitive grants. The measure doesn't name the institute, but only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy at UCLA, co-founded by Michelson and others, appears to qualify ³. Resulting treatments must generally sell in California at a 20% discount, and the state gets 10% of any revenue from discoveries, first to repay the bond's cost ¹.

Yes

The state may borrow the $8.4 billion.

No

The state does not borrow the money ¹.

Taxes and bonds. Borrowing is repaid from existing state revenue, so no tax rate changes, but the repayments compete with other state spending. The state could recoup part or all of the cost if the research produces revenue, possibly over decades. Source

Arguments

For

• Immune-system research could yield cures and offset federal research cuts ¹.
• Supporters say it is designed to pay for itself, with audits and a patient discount ¹.

Against

• It commits taxpayers to decades of bond debt for one field; priorities should go through the normal budget process ¹.
• Half the money goes to one institute; CalMatters found the criteria very likely exclude all but the one Michelson co-founded ³⁴.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO): state cost of $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bond (total cost about 10% more than paying up front). The state could recover part or all of this if research generates revenue, but timing is uncertain and could take decades ¹.

What it does

Changes the state constitution to require voters to show government-issued ID. In-person voters show it at the polls. Mail voters list an ID when they register and write its last four digits on the ballot envelope; ballots that don't match are rejected. Election officials must make "best efforts" to confirm voters are citizens and report the results by county each year. The state must offer a free voter ID card, and lawmakers must pass more laws to carry it out ¹.

Yes

Voters must show or provide ID as described.

No

Voters' identity is checked as now, by matching signatures on mail ballots ¹.

Arguments

For

• Would increase trust in elections; most states already require some ID ¹².
• Supporters cite broad bipartisan support and 100,000+ ballots rejected for signature mismatch last election ¹.

Against

• Adds barriers that could block eligible voters, especially people with disabilities, low-income voters and those who recently moved ¹².
• Opponents cite identity-theft risk and costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO): state and local costs of tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars per year (under 0.25% of the General Fund budget), depending on future decisions. Small savings from fewer registered voters would not exceed the costs ¹.

What it does

Makes it harder to pass local taxes set aside for a specific purpose (special taxes). When a city council or board proposes one, it already needs two-thirds of the vote. But court rulings let special taxes put on the ballot by voter petition pass with a simple majority. Starting Jan. 1, 2027, any new, higher or extended local special tax proposed by voters would also need two-thirds ¹. It would also bar local voter initiatives from putting property taxes on real estate, which local governments already can't do ⁵.

Yes

Voter-proposed local special taxes need a two-thirds vote.

No

They can still pass with a simple majority ¹.

Required to go to voters. It amends the state constitution, but it was born from a deal: a last-minute trade that got the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to withdraw a broader initiative. Its author, Asm. Buffy Wicks, now opposes it. Source

Taxes and bonds. Today a special tax put on the local ballot by voter signatures can pass with over 50%; Prop 43 would require two-thirds, the same bar that already applies to special taxes placed by a city council or board. It changes no existing tax, but Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) says local tax revenue could be lower in the future than it otherwise would be, by an unknown amount. Source

Arguments

For

• Closes court-created loopholes in the Prop 13 two-thirds rule, so all special taxes face the same standard ¹.
• Supporters say local governments imposed over 2,000 new or higher taxes in a decade, including real estate transfer taxes ¹.

Against

• Lets 33.4% of voters block a tax that nearly 67% want, which opponents call minority rule ¹.
• Could make it harder to fund firefighting, schools, health care and housing locally ¹².

Org. positions

Fiscal impact

LAO: local government tax revenues could be lower in the future than they otherwise would be. The actual impact is unknown and depends on future decisions by local governments and voters. No dollar estimate ¹.

What it does

Requires private nonprofit safety-net clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on programs and services, leaving at most 10% for administration and other costs. Clinics now spend about 80% on average. A clinic that falls short pays a penalty equal to the shortfall, which it gets back if it reaches 90% within five years. The Attorney General decides which expenses count, and clinics can ask for temporary waivers ¹.

Yes

Clinics must meet the 90% spending rule.

No

Clinic spending rules stay as they are ¹.

Arguments

For

• Clinics should spend more on patient care and less on executive pay and overhead ¹.

Against

• A study commissioned by the primary care association projects clinics would pay $1.7 billion in penalties in the first year, with nearly half of clinics at risk of closing; this is an opponent-commissioned figure, not Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO)'s ¹⁴.
• Clinics are already regulated and audited; LAO notes some clinics might close instead of complying ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

LAO: state enforcement costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees on affected clinics. Other state and local costs are uncertain, depending on the Attorney General's definitions and whether clinics comply or close; more Medi-Cal services could raise state costs ¹.

What it does

Creates an optional fast track through California's environmental review law (CEQA) for projects it calls "essential": housing, water systems, clean energy (not nuclear), health facilities, fire and police stations, wildfire risk reduction, broadband, education facilities and transportation (not high-speed rail). It sets firm deadlines, such as 365 business days to finish a full environmental impact report, and caps public comment periods. Project backers would only have to offer one alternative. It also limits tribal consultation to federally recognized tribes and narrows what courts can review. The California Chamber of Commerce sponsors it ¹.

Yes

Eligible projects can choose the faster process.

No

Current environmental review rules continue ¹.

Arguments

For

• CEQA delays and lawsuits raise housing and infrastructure costs; enforceable deadlines would speed essential projects ¹.
• Applicants may choose the new process, and agencies still review and can deny projects ¹.

Against

• Narrows the public's and courts' tools to challenge harmful projects, and the "essential" definition is broad ¹².
• Cuts public comment and tribal consultation; opponents say utilities and corporate PACs fund it ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO): initial state and local costs likely in the high tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially over $100 million, partly covered by fees. Longer-term effects are uncertain, positive or negative, and could be larger: faster projects could cut costs and raise tax revenue, while worse environmental outcomes could raise costs ¹.

What it does

Changes the City Charter, San Francisco's constitution, to allow a Municipal Finance Corporation. That's a nonprofit lender, with its own board and an oversight commission, for affordable housing and small businesses. Later, it could seek state and federal approval to become a public bank ¹²⁵. Nothing has to be created. The Treasurer-Tax Collector must first find enough money to fund it ¹.

Yes

The City may set up a municipal finance corporation and, later, a public bank.

No

The Charter stays as it is.

Probably optional. State law (Gov. Code §57606) appears to let a charter city do this without a vote, but the Charter route lets it override Charter and Sunshine rules. Supervisors could then change it by 8 of 11 votes only to comply with state or federal rules; anything else needs voters. Board vote 9–2. Source

Arguments

For

• Uses a time-limited state law to give the City a tool for affordable housing, small business and infrastructure lending, without a new tax ⁵.
• Independent board of professional bankers and spread-out oversight appointments limit political influence ⁶.

Against

• Creates a new City-linked entity with no dedicated funding, while the working group estimated hundreds of millions would be needed ¹⁰¹.
• Existing nonprofit lenders and credit unions already do this; the bank would serve risky clients and expose taxpayers ¹⁰¹².

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Controller (amended, Aug 20): no direct impact, since creation is optional. If pursued, costs are "significant," about $310M-$460M over eight years per 2023 working-group estimates, including roughly $4M/yr setup, $90M over the first three years of MFC capitalization and $220M over years 4-8 for a bank. Costs may be "significantly higher or lower," and the City would have limited control over outcomes ¹.

What it does

Changes the City Charter, San Francisco's constitution, to renew and grow the Housing Trust Fund, the City's main source of affordable-housing money. The money comes from the City's main budget, the General Fund. Payments would run to 2058 instead of ending in 2043, and grow faster until they reach $125M a year, likely by FY2034-35. Uses include affordable rentals and homes to buy, down-payment loans and related infrastructure. If a deficit over $250M looms, the Mayor or Board could freeze payments, or cut them up to 10% when the City's Rainy Day Reserve is tapped ¹³.

Yes

The Housing Trust Fund is renewed to 2058 and gets bigger contributions.

No

Current funding continues and ends in 2043.

Required, by choice of form. Changing the fund requires a vote, but putting it in the Charter was a choice: Sup. Melgar wanted future budgets bound after 2020 Prop I transfer-tax revenue, which the Board wanted for housing, was not spent on housing. Board vote 11–0. Source

Taxes and bonds. Prop C raises no tax: it requires the City to put a larger, growing share of its existing General Fund into the Housing Trust Fund, money that would otherwise be available for other City spending. The yearly amount grows with City property-tax or General Fund revenue and can be frozen in a deficit over $250 million or cut up to 10% when the Rainy Day Reserve is tapped. Source

Arguments

For

• Renews San Francisco's main affordable-housing funding source and raises it as rents climb ³.
• Not a new tax; growth tied to City revenue, with deficit freeze/cut valves ³¹.

Against

• Housing Trust Fund has underdelivered; per-unit costs are near $1M and the measure sets no unit targets ⁹.
• Raises homebuyer income cap to 200% of median and adds uses like social housing, spreading dollars thinner; locks in spending ⁹¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Controller (Aug 10): "significant impact," approximately $6M additional General Fund cost starting FY2028-29, growing to about $60M a year by FY2034-35 (total $125M vs. about $65M under current law). Notes the measure does not comply with the City's non-binding policy limiting voter-adopted spending mandates, which total about $2B (30%) of roughly $7B in General Fund sources ¹.

What it does

Reopens the Upper Great Highway, from Lincoln Way to Sloat, to cars on weekdays. The road is now Sunset Dunes, a full-time car-free park set by 2024's Prop K, which passed with 55%. Cars could use it from Monday 4am to Friday 6pm. It would stay a car-free park from Friday 6pm to Monday 4am and on holidays. Reopening would need a coastal development permit ²³.

Yes

The road reopens to cars on weekdays and stays a park on weekends and holidays ²³.

No

The road stays a full-time car-free park, as voters chose in 2024 ³.

Arguments

For

• Closure lengthens trips and burdens Westside residents (work, school, medical) ⁸.
• Supporters cite rising Sunset traffic injuries and say reopening restores the weekday-road, weekend-park compromise ¹.

Against

• The park drew 1.7 million visits in its first year, 53% on weekdays (Rec and Park, via LWVSF) ⁴.
• SPUR says reopening undoes the coastal-erosion and sea-level-rise plan for Ocean Beach ³.
• Voters kept the park in 2024; LWVSF cites up to $20M over five years ¹⁰.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Controller (Deputy Controller ChiaYu Ma, Aug 10 letter): would "significantly increase the cost of government" by about $9.8M one-time (mostly $8.8M for signals at 8 intersections) and about $500,000 to $1.9M per year, including $100,000 to $1.5M more for sand removal; park staffing (about $300,000/yr) would fall. Sloat signals could force a redesign of the Ocean Beach plaza; permit costs cannot be determined ².

What it does

Moves part of the transfer tax, the tax paid when property is sold, into affordable housing. It applies only to sales of $10M or more. The share that goes to the City's main budget, the General Fund, would be halved, from 5.5% to 2.75% or 6% to 3%. A new "House SF Tax" adds back the same amount, so sellers pay the same total ²³. The new tax skips the first sale of some newly built apartment buildings within five years of completion, so total revenue dips about $1M a year ¹². About $120M a year would go to a new housing fund: at least 60% to build homes, 25% to preserve or buy housing, 10% to keep tenants housed, and at most 5% for administration. Today the Board can cut or repeal the transfer tax on its own; under I it would need voter approval ¹. Mayor Lurie opposes I and backs Prop C, a different way to fund housing ³⁴.

Yes

Half the transfer tax on $10M+ sales goes to a dedicated housing fund.

No

The money stays in the City's main budget.

Taxes and bonds. Total transfer tax rates do not go up; half of the tax on $10M+ sales is relabeled as a new 'House SF Tax' that can only be spent on affordable housing. It also takes away the Board of Supervisors' current power to cut, suspend or repeal the transfer tax without voter approval. Source

Arguments

For

• Dedicated funding for affordable and social housing without raising rates; harder to divert ³⁵.

Against

• Locks in $120M/yr, cutting flexibility for parks, public safety and other services amid deficits ²⁴⁸.
• Requires no specific number of housing units built; the Mayor calls it an unaccountable fund, and backs Prop C instead ³⁴.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Controller (Greg Wagner, Aug 10 letter): a "moderate annual decrease of approximately $1 million" in City revenue from FY2027-28, but it shifts $120M per year out of the General Fund (about $119M to the new fund), which "would increase the City's projected General Fund deficit by $120 million annually" (already $741.7M in FY2028-29). It would be the City's 24th voter-mandated funding requirement; such mandates total about $2B, or 30%, of roughly $7B in General Fund sources ².

What it does

Makes large foreclosed properties pay the transfer tax, the tax paid when property is sold. Today foreclosures, and deeds handed to lenders in place of foreclosure, are taxed only on any amount the sale price exceeds what the lender is owed, which in a distressed sale is usually nothing ¹². J ends that break for commercial buildings, hotels and residential buildings with five or more units. They would pay the usual rates on the property's market value. Homes and mixed-use buildings under five units stay partly exempt. It starts March 1, 2027 ¹².

Yes

Foreclosures on large properties pay the transfer tax.

No

Foreclosures keep their tax break.

Required to go to voters. Ending the exemption raises a tax, and tax increases need voter approval. Board vote 10–0. Source

Taxes and bonds. Removing the existing tax break is a new tax only on large foreclosed properties; single-family homes, 2-4 unit buildings and small mixed-use buildings keep the break. Today the break is partial: the lender pays tax only on the gap between the sale price and what it is owed. Source

Arguments

For

• Proponents say the exemption was meant for struggling homeowners, not corporate lenders and investors buying defaulted loans ²⁹.
• Closes a loophole: GrowSF says 45 Fremont changed hands through a $238M defaulted-loan purchase with no transfer tax paid, and would owe about $14M under J ⁵.

Against

• Taxing distress sales adds friction and could slow downtown recovery and liquidity ³.
• An earlier GrowSF analysis warned lenders may "extend and pretend" rather than foreclose ³; opponents say lenders could raise rates, making SF lending costlier ²⁹.
• Revenue is volatile, so unreliable for budgeting ¹.

Org. positions

The money

Fiscal impact

Controller (Greg Wagner, Aug 10 letter): would "significantly increase" transfer tax revenue, averaging $100M to $150M annually over the first five years, but unpredictable and likely to change significantly year to year; near-term revenue highest, then declining significantly. It would have raised $3.2M in FY2021-22 but $232.5M in FY2025-26; some years may bring "next to no new tax revenue" ¹.