California General Election
Proposition 1: California Veteran and Housing Assistance Programs Bond Measure
Proposition 1 would borrow $11.25 billion for housing, $10 billion of it in general obligation bonds repaid from the General Fund at roughly $580 million a year for three decades. SD Taxpayers opposes the measure because the state is carrying a structural deficit, and the bond's own self-supporting CalVet component demonstrates that these goals can be financed without adding General Fund debt.
Proposition 2: California Budget Stabilization Account Cap Increase and Gann Limit Changes Amendment
Proposition 2 would double California's constitutional reserve cap and expand the paydown of state debts and liabilities — goals SD Taxpayers shares — but it would also exclude reserve deposits from the state's voter-approved spending limit. Because that exclusion applies in precisely the high-revenue years when the limit would otherwise return money to taxpayers, SD Taxpayers opposes the measure.
Proposition 3: California Renew State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative
SD Taxpayers opposes Proposition 3, which would permanently remove the 2030 expiration date from the top-bracket income tax surcharge voters approved as temporary in 2012 and extended in 2016. Permanence forecloses a tax-rate reduction already scheduled under current law, it deepens the state's reliance on a small and unusually volatile group of filers who supply roughly half of all personal income tax revenue, and it removes the state's ability to revisit that rate structure without returning to the voters.
Proposition 37: California Second Mortgage Homebuyer Program and Revenue Bond Initiative
Proposition 37 would establish a $25 billion CalHFA program offering middle-income buyers a second mortgage of up to 17 percent of a home's purchase price, financed by revenue bonds that borrowers themselves repay. SD Taxpayers supports the measure because the Legislative Analyst's Office found no direct cost to state or local government, expanding homeownership without adding taxpayer-backed debt.
Proposition 40: California One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Healthcare, Education, and Food Assistance Programs Initiative
SD Taxpayers opposes Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time 5 percent tax on the net worth of Californians worth more than $1 billion and direct most of the revenue to state health care programs. Three structural problems drive the position: a one-time, asset-price-dependent revenue source is pledged against ongoing Medi-Cal obligations, the tax base is concentrated in roughly 200 highly mobile taxpayers, and unresolved valuation and legal questions could delay or reduce what the measure actually collects.
Proposition 41: California Prohibit Excluding New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Require Special Tax Audits Initiative
Proposition 41 would require the State Auditor to review any program a proposed state special tax would fund before voters decide on it, with recurring audits afterward, and would bar new state taxes from being exempted from the state's spending limit. SD Taxpayers supports the measure as an extension to state government of the same audit and oversight standards it applies to local tax and bond measures.
Proposition 42: California Prohibit New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limit Retroactive Taxes Initiative
Proposition 42 would constitutionally prohibit new state taxes on retirement accounts, savings, and other personal property, along with certain retroactive state taxes. SD Taxpayers supports the measure for the planning certainty it gives households, consistent with its long-standing skepticism of wealth and net-worth taxation on administrability and capital-flight grounds.
Proposition 43: California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment
SD Taxpayers supports Proposition 43, which would require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes proposed by citizen initiative — the same threshold that already applies when a city, county, or district places one on the ballot. The support rests on equal treatment rather than on any prediction about tax levels, and the gap it closes is not hypothetical: roughly two dozen local special taxes have been enacted statewide by simple majority since a 2017 court decision opened it.
Proposition 45: Changes to Environmental Review Process for Certain Projects Initiative
SD Taxpayers supports Proposition 45, which would set enforceable deadlines for environmental review under CEQA and allow a deficient portion of a review document to be corrected without setting aside an entire project approval. The measure changes how projects are reviewed rather than the environmental standards they must meet, and with nearly half of all CEQA lawsuits targeting taxpayer-funded projects, the Legislative Analyst's Office expects net savings for state and local government over the long term.
