Politicians want to borrow $10 Billion on the taxpayers’ credit card — and you’ll pay back over $17 billion with interest. Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive.

Called the “Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026,” this is $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds with only $1.25 billion allocated to benefit veterans. The rest will finance other housing assistance programs…. Bonds are the most expensive way to pay for anything, and when used to pay for programs instead of capital projects, it’s a much greater burden on taxpayers than just paying for these programs from the budget.

There are those who argue California can both subsidize housing and loosen regulations, but the reality that we’re still having this discussion underscores that state and local leaders are dragging their feet and not deregulating fast enough.

Prop 2 claims to create a bigger rainy day fund in the state budget, but in reality it creates a new slush fund for politicians to engage in more wasteful spending.

This measure makes changes to the Gann Limit, passed by voters in 1979, and to the rules for the Budget Stabilization Account (“Rainy Day Fund”) that were approved by voters in 2014….California is in desperate need of fiscal discipline. The changes in the state constitution that permit unlimited spending should be reversed. Prop. 2 falls far short of real spending reform and, unfortunately, amounts to little more than a Band-Aid on a severed limb.

Prop. 2 operates under the pretense that Sacramento really just wants to become more responsible. What it actually does is further bloat the accounts of the state, enables ongoing budget games and makes it harder for taxpayers to get some of their money back.

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.

Remember the “temporary” income tax rate hike “for the schools” that was passed in 2012 and “temporarily” renewed in 2016? This measure renews it again and this time makes it permanent. California has the highest income tax rates in the nation, and every year the state has a bigger budget and a higher cost of living to show for it. These “temporary” income tax rate hikes should not be a backdoor method for permanent tax increases.

Robbing future voters of their decision-making because the California Teachers Association wants to secure a revenue stream years ahead of time is unjustified.

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.

Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (PRA), prohibits the use of tax money to finance political campaigns for elective office. Proposition 4 would remove that ban. HJTA has previously won court cases upholding this provision of the PRA, and we haven’t changed our position. Taxpayers should not have to pay the campaign expenses of candidates running for office or incumbents running for re-election.

At a time when governments across the state are hemorrhaging money and turning to tax increases to sustain the services they currently have, why even allow politicians to set up programs giving tax dollars to their campaigns and the campaigns of their friends? While we’re sure politicians would prefer to spend less time fundraising, does that justify diverting finite tax dollars away from things that will directly benefit taxpayers?

We agree that corporations should not be able to buy candidates or campaigns, but Prop. 4 is not the answer. Creating a fund of taxpayer dollars and making it available for election campaigns is not the answer. Those hard-earned dollars belong in a municipality’s general fund, to be used on improving roadways, funding for public safety officers or enhancing our local parks.

All available research indicates that the effectiveness of a public campaign finance program depends on how it’s designed. Prop 4 has a fatal flaw that opens the door to limited taxpayer funds being wasted on efforts that don’t meaningfully move the needle — at a time of widespread budget deficits.

Makes it harder to Recall a politician from office and simultaneously replace them with a candidate of the voters’ choosing.

Proposition 5 would eliminate the election of a replacement candidate in recalls of statewide officeholders and state legislators. Offices would be filled by appointment or later special election. If a governor was recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would become Governor for the remainder of the unexpired term or until a special election, depending on timing. Proposition 5 allows the recalled officeholder to run in the special election to fill the seat, which current law prohibits. This measure makes a mockery of the recall process.

Elected officials may not like it, but the recall is no attack on democracy. If anything, it’s democracy’s version of DoorDash, delivering accountability fast, and wherever it’s needed. It’s a tool for the people, not the politicians.

Prop 5 would overhaul California’s process for recalling state-level officials. The process can certainly be improved, but the problem isn’t so dire that voters need to accept Prop 5’s glaring flaw.

Public money for newly constructed homes exclusively accessible to higher income individuals, primarily benefiting builders and developers….Our opposition is rooted in equity and access to housing, not opposition to homebuilding or middle-class homeownership.

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.

Despite helping mid-income homebuyers, the bond will increase the California state debt liability, and has a potential to artificially inflate the housing market. The Green Party believes that “housing is a human right” and emphasizes addressing the housing needs of the lowest income earners, through social housing, rent protection, vacancy taxes, fair housing laws, ending tax breaks for developers, and funding Community Land Trusts.

HJTA appreciates the intent of this measure, but we have concerns about the size of the program and the criteria for eligibility to participate. Prop. 37 is not a constitutional amendment, which leaves it subject to legislative alteration. More fundamentally, California’s housing crisis is better addressed with less government impediments to building rather than a new government program.

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…. 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.

California needs homeownership programs that lower families’ total costs, confront racial barriers to building wealth, and support strong communities. Prop 37 does not meet that test.

Proposition 37 attempts to be a path through California’s minefield of regulations and liability in the housing sector, but it’s relying on the hope that non-profits will subsidize second mortgages so income-limited families who don’t have the money for a down payment can have two mortgage payments, not to mention the cost of homeowners insurance, HOA fees, property taxes and utility bills.

A research bond with rules rigged so half the money, over $4 billion, goes to one billionaire-backed research institute, costing taxpayers more than $12 billion with interest.

This proposition is pretty naked self-dealing by wealthy individuals. By phrasing it as promoting medical research, something no one opposes, Michelson hopes to smuggle in a popular mandate to deliver state funds to his own institution. Voters should not constitutionally commit billions in public debt through an initiative constructed around a particular private institution. Instead, we should democratically fund actual public institutions that are accountable for their work.

The “Fauci Gov’t funding of unethical and unsupervised medical experimentation Act’ The money essentially goes to bill’s author. A Medical researcher who will determine his own ethics. Aborted baby body parts are frequently used by such medical labs.

Proposition 38 is an end run around the state Legislature. If California wants to fund immunology research, whether through bonds or directly from the General Fund, it should first be taken up in the legislative process where it can be deliberated and weighed against other compelling state needs with a broader representation of interests.

The Green Party of California supports scientific research but we believe a better solution is to ensure everyone pays their fair, proportionate share of the taxes in order to fund research in public universities.

Another bond measure, Proposition 38 authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for research and therapies related to using the body’s immune system to treat disease. There is no reason that this cost should be borne by California taxpayers. Viable research can be funded by pharmaceutical companies, foundations and the federal government.

This is a total corruption of the ballot process and not how we should be funding medical research.

Medical research matters, but this measure is structured in a way that raises serious concerns about who benefits. The measure does not name the institute that would receive $4.2 billion. However, a CalMatters investigation found that its selection criteria very likely exclude every institute in California except one: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. That institute’s co-founder, billionaire Gary K. Michelson, is one of the measure’s two chief financial backers.

[I}t 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.

California can support important medical research without committing taxpayers to decades of debt and restricting future choices about where limited public dollars can do the most good.

No matter how one looks at it, Prop. 38 makes little sense unless your research institution expects to get a windfall of public funds.

This is no way to invest public funds in research, and even if it were, no state can afford to replace the federal government’s role in primary research. California voters shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

Who could be against funding research for diseases like Parkinsons? The problem is, the $8.4 billion in state bonds, which will take $500 million annually out of the state budget, must go to an organization that meets a set of difficult criteria—and the only organization currently meeting those rules is run by the person who funded Prop. 38.

Wouldn’t it feel great to vote for something everyone can agree will make a positive difference in the world? Prop 38 positions itself as such a balm. In fact, it’s one of the most noxious deposits on California’s political dung heap in years. It would give billions to an institute co-founded by billionaire Michael Milken, also known as the “junk bond king,” who was pardoned by Trump in 2020.

Prop 39 would require voters to present a government-issued identification card for in-person voting and add a personal ID number on vote-by-mail envelopes. The measure is unclear on which kinds of ID would be accepted, creating an unnecessary barrier to the democratic process that will deny eligible voters access to the polls. These barriers would make it harder for eligible Californians to vote and put voter privacy at risk.

The “California Voter Suppression Act” forces voters to hand over personal information, even to vote by mail, to fix a problem we don’t have.

Proposition 39’s proposed goal of requiring voter ID seems to be reasonable. But the proposition’s other requirements are not.

For forty years, conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have searched for evidence of ineligible voters. The number found — out of billions of votes cast — is fewer than 100….Critics conclude there’s no evidence of meaningful voter fraud, and no reason to impose new barriers, costs, or hardships on eligible voters — calling Prop. 39 an attempt at voter suppression rather than a fraud-prevention measure. There is no voter fraud.

Voting is a democratic right, not something conditioned on navigating unnecessary administrative barriers. This is a proposal to add as many barriers as possible to voters to stop a non-existent fraud problem…. This is just one more step in the fascist MAGA movement’s quest to disenfranchise the poor and anti-democratically rig our elections for their own benefit.

CMA recognizes voting as a social determinant of health because civic engagement helps shape policies affecting health, health equity and access to care. This proposition will create barriers to voting that would disproportionately impact historically underrepresented communities, naturalized citizens and people with disabilities.

Voter suppression by elected officials is an ongoing problem, one that threatens the very essence of democracy and our ability to hold elected officials accountable. Proposition 39 has been bankrolled by several billionaire backers of President Trump, who still maintains he is the victim of voter fraud and has engaged in voter suppression efforts around the country.

The problem with low turnout of voters stems from lack of representation and the inability for us to vote for what we really want. The Green Party’s solution is sweeping electoral reforms such as Proportional Representation, publicly funded elections, overturning Citizens United, and Ranked Choice Voting.

As California law stands, voters are already required to show a government-issued ID and social security number when registering to vote, but are not required to do so at polling places. This is an anti-democratic move by conservative lawmakers who continue to project about election fraud. It is another way for them to make voting more difficult and to create barriers for young people, people with disabilities, and low-income voters.

Requiring voter ID would roll back decades of organizing to expand voting access and would make it harder for eligible Black, Brown, and low-income Californians to vote. The burden falls hardest on people who struggle to obtain or keep government-issued ID: formerly incarcerated people rebuilding their lives, unhoused residents, older voters, and students. The measure’s citizenship verification requirements also raise serious concerns about how voter data could be used for immigration enforcement.

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.

Prop 39 is a partisan power grab to further President Trump’s voter suppression efforts. It is based on lies about our elections. Prop 39 is intended to make it harder to vote and easier for politicians to decide which voters count. Right-wing billionaires spent millions to put it on the ballot.

Voter ID requirements may appear simple, but they can create real obstacles for transgender people whose identification documents do not match their name or gender marker, as well as for seniors, low-income voters, immigrants, people with disabilities, and people experiencing housing instability. The right to vote should not depend on paperwork that many eligible voters may not have, may not be able to update, or may avoid using for safety reasons.

In practice, Prop. 39 would add a new ID requirement to safeguards California already has, resulting in more legitimate ballots being rejected than fraudulent votes being prevented.

This is a California GOP version of Trump’s efforts to disenfranchise voters.

California could do more to assuage concerns about election integrity. But even if you think voter fraud is a problem in California, Prop 39 would turn our elections into a never-ending lawsuit.

Transform’s vision for affordable housing and sustainable transportation depends on all people — especially marginalized communities — having power and voice. Prop 39 would create new barriers that obstruct one of the most important ways people’s voices are heard: voting.

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.

CMA opposes this measure because it does not guarantee that new revenue will result in more health care spending and could allow existing health care funding to be reduced and backfilled with Prop. 40 revenue, creating greater uncertainty for Medi-Cal and patient care.

This is an entirely new type of tax, and we don’t know where it will lead. Will all Californians have to submit forms to the Franchise Tax Board declaring their assets every year? How much will ordinary Californians have to pay for “wealth tax preparation” to comply with this law?

Taxation is theft, libertarian thinkers have long asserted, and Proposition 40 on the November ballot contains nothing that proves them wrong.

Prop 41 would create new constitutional requirements for statewide special taxes that could delay ballot measures and make it harder to fund voter-approved priorities like healthcare, education and other essential public services. California already has safeguards to ensure accountability for public funds. We don’t need new barriers that make it harder to invest in our communities.

A billionaire-backed measure that cancels the Billionaire Tax if it gets more votes, and makes it harder to tax the ultra-rich in the future.

While framed as a general reform, this measure is particularly aimed at reining in Proposition 40 should it pass, and at potential new taxes under Proposition 42….In short, what this measure calls for is already being done. The proponents simply don’t like the results — and that’s not a reason to duplicate existing processes in hopes of a different outcome.

Prop 41 is one of two measures put on the ballot by billionaires to thwart the Billionaire Tax (Prop 40). Prop 41 supposedly creates audits of new state tax revenues and makes them subject to a cap. The Billionaire Tax will easily earn more than the cap, over which any money is either returned to voters or goes to education…. This measure, like 42, is ultimately about defeating the billionaire tax and more generally, the possibility of expanding the public sphere. One of the primary funders of Prop 41 is Sergey Brin, who recently surpassed Jeff Bezos to become the third richest person in the world.

Proposition 41, along with Proposition 42, is bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin. Lest there be any confusion about this measure’s real intent, the text of the initiative states that other voter-approved measures appearing on the same ballot are void if they conflict with this measure and if Proposition 41receives more YES votes. In short, Proposition 41 is a ruse whose real purpose is to invalidate Proposition 40.

Both prop 41 and 42 are specifically designed to nullify proposition 40. Prop 40 would be nullified even if it passes, IF either prop 41 or prop 42 also pass with one more vote than prop 40. Props 41 and 42 are funded by 7 billionaires who have already spent nearly $200 million in attack ads to mislead voters.

Prop 41 was introduced as a way to nullify and defeat Prop 40. It contains language that could make taxation more complicated, but that’s secondary to its main purpose.

Proposition 41 is presented as a good-government transparency measure, but it was designed to kill Proposition 40, the billionaire tax. Proposition 40 exempts its revenue from the state spending limit, and Proposition 41 includes a “poison pill”: if it receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, the billionaire tax is voided entirely, even if a majority of voters approve it.

Prop 41 is also designed to prevail over a conflicting initiative on the same ballot. If both Prop 40, the Billionaire Tax measure, and Prop 41 pass and Prop 41 receives more “yes” votes, courts could find that they conflict and prevent Prop 40 from becoming law. Litigation could delay a final determination.

What’s insidious Prop. 41 is that it is presented as a good governance measure when it’s really about defeating Prop. 40…. Voters should know that Prop. 41 has a specific target and is funded and supported by wealthy people with a financial stake in defeating Prop. 40.

Voters should be careful when they get to Propositions 41 and 42 on the November ballot. They are not what they seem. Read in isolation, they might sound like good ideas, but they are really poison pills, an electoral bulwark that billionaires hope will stop a tax on their wealth.

Prop. 41 is just a poison pill that would undermine the billionaire tax.

Prop 41 would require new special taxes that raise money for specific purposes to adhere to state spending rules, while mandating regular audits of the programs they fund. But really it’s a cheap ruse to nullify Prop 40, the billionaire wealth tax.

If either Prop 41 or 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, it invalidates Prop 40. So be sure to vote no on Prop 41 and 42 as well.

If passed, Prop 42 will exacerbate wealth inequality while starving state budgets of funding for healthcare, public education, infrastructure and emergency services – leaving middle-class taxpayers to pick up the tab through higher sales and income taxes.

A billionaire-backed ban on taxing extreme wealth, killing the Billionaire Tax and blocking any future attempt to make the ultra-rich pay their share.

This measure, a constitutional amendment, would permanently prohibit the kinds of taxes proposed in Proposition 40 on individuals with $1 billion or more in income and assets….This measure is a cynical attempt to tug at voters’ heartstrings with unwarranted fears about harming “small business.” Whether one supports or opposes Proposition 40, these two provisions — 41 and 42 — should be turned down either way. They serve no public interest and only add confusion to the ballot.

Prop 42 is the second of two measures put on the ballot to thwart the Billionaire Tax (Prop 40). It prohibits new taxes on personal property including retirement accounts, financial assets, or business interests. It deceptively proposes that unnamed “Sacramento politicians” are planning to do this to everyone. The only tax it would apply to, without naming it, is the Billionaire Tax. Like with 41, more votes for 42 than 40 nullifies the Billionaire Tax.

Proposition 42 amends the State Constitution to prohibit new taxes on financial assets or other personal property. By amending the Constitution, this measure could greatly limit the Legislature’s ability to raise sufficient revenues in future years…. It makes more sense for the Legislature to retain the ability to consider new revenues in response to changing circumstances over time and for voters to hold legislators accountable for taxing and spending decisions.

Prohibits the enactment of new taxes after Jan. 1, 2026 on ownership or accumulation of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings. Both prop 41 and 42 are specifically designed to nullify proposition 40. Prop 40 would be nullified even if it passes, IF either prop 41 or prop 42 also pass with one more vote than prop 40. Props 41 and 42 are funded by 7 billionaires who have already spent nearly $200 million in attack ads to mislead voters.

This measure would create a ban on new taxes that target personal property, and was, similarly to Prop 41, designed to block the billionaire tax. Like its counterpart, Prop 42 would make Prop 40 null and void if the former receives more votes than the latter. Also like 41, this measure was put on the ballot by the billionaires who think they can put one over on the voters.

Supporters present it as protecting ordinary Californians’ retirement savings, but its real target is Proposition 40, the billionaire tax. Like Proposition 41, it includes a poison pill: if Proposition 42 receives more YES votes than Proposition 40, the billionaire tax is voided entirely. That risk is real. A September 2026 PPIC poll found Proposition 42 at 54% support, ahead of Proposition 40’s 52%.

[T]here is no real movement to tax the average individual’s personal assets. Instead, the opponents of Proposition 40 hope that voters are worried enough about taxes on their personal assets to defeat the billionaires’ tax.

Prop 42 would lock broad new restrictions on state taxing power into the California Constitution, limiting California’s ability to respond to future needs.

Revenue decisions are not abstract policy questions; they determine whether communities can access clinics, housing support, HIV services, mental health care, homelessness prevention, and other programs that sustain LGBTQ+ lives. California should preserve the flexibility to respond to changing conditions rather than permanently removing tools that may be needed to advance equity and protect vulnerable communities.

Prop. 42 is a poison pill designed to derail the real debate over a one-time wealth tax on billionaires. Voters should reject the decoy and vote no.

Voters should be careful when they get to Propositions 41 and 42 on the November ballot. They are not what they seem. Read in isolation, they might sound like good ideas, but they are really poison pills, an electoral bulwark that billionaires hope will stop a tax on their wealth.

Prop. 42 is a simple poison pill that would not only undermine Prop. 40 but would ban any future wealth taxes. Even the Chronicle, which opposes Prop. 40, says it’s a scam.

Is California coming for your retirement account? That’s what the backers of this measure would have you believe. In reality, it’s just another poison-pill measure aimed at killing Prop 40, the billionaire wealth tax. You don’t have to support the billionaire wealth tax to realize the potential collateral damage Prop 42 could cause.

If either Prop 41 or 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, it invalidates Prop 40. So be sure to vote no on Prop 41 and 42 as well.

Prop 43 would require two-thirds voter-approval for local revenue measures that voters themselves put on the ballot. That means just one-third of voters could block what the rest of us want, making it harder to fund schools, affordable housing, healthcare and other community priorities.

Lets a small minority of voters block local taxes on the wealthy, so community wins like LA’s Mansion Tax would be nearly impossible to pass in the future.

This 2026 proposition seeks a constitutional amendment making the two-thirds standard absolute across the board, regardless of who initiates the tax or how the revenue is used. It would…bar ordinary citizens from pursuing focused, achievable tax solutions to local problems.

Prop 43 would undermine basic principles of democracy by making it easier for big corporate interests like the Realtor’s Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the fossil fuel industry, and other likely suspects to kill funding for the things we need by propagandizing a sufficient minority to prevent funding of public goods.

This measure would make it harder to fund local priorities by amending the State Constitution to require that any proposed special taxes placed on the ballot must be approved by a two-thirds supermajority of voters. Thirty-four percent of the voting public could negate the will of the larger majority.

The Green Party’s core value of social justice and our policies on tax reforms are in contradiction to the impact of this measure.

This is more bullshit from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, one of the most destructive groups in the history of the state. The ultimate goal of this measure is to make it impossible for the state to raise revenue or fulfill the basic functions of a government.

Community-led ballot measures have been one of the most powerful tools for winning resources our communities need. Measure ULA, the “mansion tax” that funds affordable housing and tenant protections in Los Angeles, is a local example of the kind of citizen-led revenue this measure would make much harder to pass in the future. Under Proposition 43, a minority of voters could block local measures supported by a clear majority.

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.

Prop 43 would make it harder for communities to raise revenue for public services by allowing a minority of voters to block local tax measures.

Housing, homelessness services, transportation, public health, and LGBTQ+ community programs often depend on local funding measures. Requiring a two-thirds vote would give a minority of voters the power to stop services that most residents support, making it harder for communities to meet urgent needs and care for one another.

Prop. 43 would give the minority too much power. It would make it much harder for citizens to take matters into their own hands when governments can’t — or won’t — finance special projects that serve the public interest.

Prop. 43 arrives on the ballot as a political bargain to stave off an even more onerous initiative. It would not cut anyone’s taxes. What it would do is give a minority of voters a veto over funding local services such as parks, fire protection and child care that most of their neighbors want. Ironically, Prop. 43 needs only a simple majority to pass.

Prop. 43 seeks to undermine a recent state Supreme Court decision that ruled local tax measures put on the ballot by citizen initiative can take effect with just 50 percent plus 1. The right wing anti-tax folks want to make that two-thirds.

California already has significant voter protections around local taxes. We should not make it even harder for communities to invest in transit, safer streets, and other public services. Local voters should have the power to decide how to fund their communities.

Proposition 43 isn’t about majority-rule, it’s about minority-veto. The way transit is funded in California is imperfect, but this measure would take us in the wrong direction.

Prop 43 would make it harder for local governments to raise the funds they need to keep schools and transit running smoothly and to build affordable housing…. The people supporting Prop 43 claim to be anti-tax activists. What they are is hostile to measures that support the health of California communities.

Restricts clinic’s ability to pay for the cost of operating. Could force smaller community clinics to close when healthcare access is already under threat….As Trump’s Medicaid cuts threaten coverage and clinic funding, clinics need flexibility to stay open and serve patients. We are concerned that a one-size-fits-all spending requirement could undermine clinics’ ability to operate and maintain access to care.

Increases mandates and costs on community health clinics, threatening their ability to provide patient care….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.

Good management tends to favor lean staffing during hard times, but robust staffing is the healthier long-term goal. We believe standard nonprofit practices should guide operations in good times, not just lean ones — and that this measure is too rigid to serve clinics well over the long term.

This measure would impose an estimated $1.7 billion in financial penalties on clinics in just the first year alone – forcing clinics to reduce services or close, which would lead to longer wait times for patients and fewer places to receive care.

Safety-net clinics function as primary care providers for many low-income, uninsured Californians. Smaller, rural clinics are often not able to achieve the economies of scale that larger clinics can. Having to pay penalties could further jeopardize safety-net clinics, which are already facing serious fiscal challenges on account of federal spending cuts. Proposition 44 is a solution in search of a problem with potentially harmful consequences.

This measure requires community clinics that provide primary care to medically underserved areas and populations to spend at least 90% of their revenue on patient services, not management and overhead. It authorizes the Attorney General to publish guidance on qualifying expenditures and lets the Department of Public Health issue waivers. It authorizes monetary penalties and criminal charges. It is sponsored by a powerful labor organization seeking to expand its control over private clinics.

[T]his measure, if passed, would place greater restrictions and penalties on clinics that serve low-income, rural, and non-white communities at a time when the healthcare landscape in California is already precarious. This measure will likely result in clinic closures and the loss of services in vulnerable areas.

Community clinics are the medical home for many of the people La Defensa serves: undocumented immigrants, formerly incarcerated people, unhoused residents, and families without insurance. Much of what makes these clinics work is not direct medical care but the support around it: case management, interpretation, outreach, and help navigating benefits. A rigid 90% rule could force clinics to cut exactly those services.

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.

A rule intended to direct more money to patient care should not put the safety net itself at risk. Prop 44 could worsen health disparities rather than reduce them.

While the measure provides state authorities the ability to waive requirements in certain cases, such hurdles, coupled with the threat of fines, will only undermine the ability of community health clinics to effectively serve patients.

Prop 44 would also penalize clinics for investing in the staff, technology, translation, transportation, care coordination, and infrastructure that make health care accessible and effective. At a time when our health care system is already strained, voters must reject Prop 44 to protect community clinics and ensure everyone has equal access to healthy lives.

Now is not the time to impose strict spending requirements on hundreds of clinics, forcing them to eliminate vital patient services or shut down entirely.

Now is not the time to bring politics into community health clinics. If the effects of Prop. 44 force clinics to close and patients to lose access to care, indigent healthcare needs do not disappear. Patients will delay seeking treatment, only to end up in the hospital emergency room for routine care that will cost them more.

We get the idea of this measure, backed by United Healthcare Workers West: It would mandate that health clinics spend 90 percent of their money on direct services, not administration. But it creates such a burden in reporting that it could lead to lower levels of service.

On its surface, everything about Prop 44 on California’s November ballot looks appealing. But it creates a complex administrative and legal regime that will drain limited staff time and resources from nonprofit clinics while distracting from patient care.

Environmental review isn’t red tape. It’s how communities get a say before a project moves forward in their neighborhood. The communities hit hardest by pollution and displacement depend on that process to protect themselves. Fast-tracking environmental review means less input by the people who live closest to what’s being built.

Business led initiative that would make it easier to build data centers and other polluting projects with little public oversight by gutting the California Environmental Quality Act.

Decades of work went into making California one of the safest states environmentally; this measure, as Building Trades itself has noted, risks undoing much of that progress. With AI data centers expanding rapidly, this is a poor time to reduce communities’ capacity to evaluate their impact. We cannot support weakening environmental protections to ease the path for builders.

We should support greater public planning capacity; strong labor standards; and targeted limits on bad-faith litigation from wealthy and well-connected homeowners who want to block affordable housing and public transit. But we still need community and environmental protections, as well as a democratic process for development. Prop 45 is not the solution.

While Proposition 45 would result in construction cost savings for developers, it will also result in less public input, more environmental degradation, including more air pollution and contaminated water supplies with negative public health consequences and harm to wildlife. Taxpayers inevitably end up bearing the costs of remediation.

This is a corporate-backed rollback of critical public health and environmental protections, as it limits public participation and raises costs for taxpayers. The Green Party urges public engagement and oversight on all projects that impact their communities.

Ultimately Prop 45 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, using the need for housing and transit to fast-track highway construction and AI data centers.

CEQA is one of the few tools available to frontline communities, often low-income communities of color already living beside freeways, refineries, and industrial sites, to demand that pollution be disclosed and reduced before a project moves forward. Proposition 45 would let developers fast-track projects with far less accountability and would restrict what judges can consider when communities challenge them. Critics warn it could speed approval of data centers, freeway expansions, and other polluting projects.

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.

The League has supported some streamlining of CEQA requirements. But the process overhaul of CEQA proposed by Prop 45 goes too far.

Supporters are pushing this as a pro-housing measure, but it’s actually a sweeping attack on the California Environmental Quality Act. Even California YIMBY opposes it.

California absolutely needs CEQA reform. It should be easier to build housing, clean energy, transit, and bike infrastructure. But that’s not what Proposition 45 does. Instead, Prop 45 gives highway expansions a faster environmental review process by limiting alternatives, shortening timelines, and making lawsuits harder.

The measure is being pitched as a way to modernize the state’s landmark environmental protection law, the California Environmental Quality Act; but its impact would make it easier to build new highways or complete highway expansion projects by limiting the study of alternatives, opportunities for public input, and the timeline for legal challenges.

Prop 45 shortens the environmental review process under CEQA for projects deemed “essential” — including new highways. While CEQA has, at times, been used to slow or halt housing development, this proposition would streamline many projects that are outright bad for people and the planet.