California General Election
Measure RTM: Connect Bay Area Transit Initiative
SPUR's Recommendation
The potential collapse of transit services poses a serious threat to the many people who rely on transit to access jobs, medical appointments, and groceries. Vulnerable groups — including people with disabilities, older adults, students, and low-income workers — would bear the brunt of service cuts. SPUR believes maintaining reliable transit funding outweighs concerns about the regressive nature of a sales tax.
Transit is also vital for the region’s economy: half of all transit trips are work-related, and transit supports access to job opportunities. Robust service, especially in the evenings, supports small businesses and major events. Without it, traffic congestion will worsen, raising transportation costs for everyone and negatively impacting quality of life and the region’s economy.
BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit account for more than 80% of transit trips in the region. Cutting their services would not only exacerbate traffic but also significantly increase air and climate pollution, jeopardizing environmental progress.
What Prop. RTM Would Do
Note: SPUR is a sponsor of Proposition RTM.
Proposition RTM is a 14-year, 5-county sales tax that would raise approximately $1 billion per year to preserve transit service. In addition to preventing cuts to BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit, the measure would raise revenue for regional rider-focused programs that make transit more seamless and easy to use. Most counties would also receive funding for local transit improvements and road maintenance. The tax rate would be 0.5% in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo and 1% in San Francisco. The varied rates reflect differences in each county’s tax base and use of regional transit services.
• San Francisco: All revenues would fund the city’s share of regional transit services and provide support for Muni.
• Alameda: Most revenues would support and sustain regional transit operations, with $15.6 million each year for use on other local bus service and transit priorities.
• Contra Costa: Most funds would support and sustain regional transit operations, with $42.3 million each year for local bus service and transit priorities.
• Santa Clara: After meeting the contribution to regional transit services, the county would have approximately $264 million per year for local transportation priorities.
• San Mateo: After meeting the contribution to regional services, the county would have approximately $50 million annually for local transportation priorities.
Five percent of the revenues generated from the measure would fund its administration and rider-focused improvements such as discounted and coordinated fares, wayfinding, and accessibility improvements that make transit more seamless.
The measure includes strict oversight and transparency requirements:
• Independent financial reviews of BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit, with requirements to implement cost-saving recommendations in order to receive funds
• Citizen oversight of spending and performance.
• County-level oversight to ensure service standards are applied fairly, with authority to withhold funds for noncompliance.
State legislation authorized the measure, and a citizen initiative placed it on the ballot. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
The Backstory
Facing a fiscal cliff, BART, Caltrain, Muni, and AC Transit could undertake widespread service cuts beginning as soon as January 2027. Should Prop. RTM fail, the agencies have identified the following cuts:
• Caltrain: To close a $75 million deficit, close up to 10 stations, eliminate weekend service, reduce frequency to hourly, end service by 9 p.m., and potentially close corridor segments.
• BART: To close a $376 million deficit, cut more than 60% of service, reduce service to three primary lines with limited peak service on two others, and end service by 9 p.m. Longer-term cuts could include closing up to 15 stations and potentially the entire system.
• Muni: To close a $322 million deficit, eliminate nearly one-quarter of routes, end service after 9 p.m., and cut frequency on Metro, Rapid, and frequent routes by half.
• AC Transit: To address a $200 million four-year deficit, cut service by 16%, eliminate routes, reduce service hours and frequency (including transbay service), and leave only 13 of 74 lines unchanged.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bay Area’s largest transit systems operated near capacity, collecting a significant share of operational funding from fares, parking revenues, and other local sources tied to the economy’s health. This model made them more self-sufficient compared with other agencies nationwide, but it also made them vulnerable to pandemic-related disruptions. With a large share of Bay Area jobs now remote, ridership and revenues are recovering more slowly than in other major metropolitan regions. Six years post-pandemic, riders have returned to transit, but they ride less frequently.
When federal and state COVID-relief funds are exhausted at the end of this year, BART, Caltrain, Muni, and AC Transit will face annual deficits of 25% to 45% of their operating budgets. They have been preparing for this fiscal crisis by reducing costs and stretching public funds. An independent review of AC Transit, BART, Caltrain and SF Muni found that they have collectively saved $1 billion in operating expenses in the last five years through various cost-saving actions.
Some have suggested shifting federal funds for capital projects (i.e., building new transit) to fill the operations gap. However, existing funding sources would still be insufficient to meet transit’s operating needs, even under the most optimistic scenarios. The funds available pale in comparison to the deficits, and most capital funding can’t be repurposed for operations due to legal requirements. In short, transit agencies cannot reallocate funds.
Additionally, transit, particularly rail, has high fixed costs. Cutting service doesn’t yield commensurate savings. Instead, it creates a downward spiral of fewer riders and, therefore, lower revenues, highlighting the need for new revenue.
Previous attempts to explore alternative revenue sources for Bay Area transit (including Senate Bill 532 and Senate Bill 1031) lacked political support.
Prop. RTM was a regional solution developed with the state legislature, elected county officials, and other stakeholders to ensure consensus on fair revenue distribution that supports transit and benefits residents in all five counties. The legislature authorized the measure by a two-thirds vote, and a citizen signature-gathering initiative placed it on the ballot. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
Equity Impacts
As a flat sales tax, Prop. RTM is regressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from low-income households. However, failing to implement this measure would trigger devastating service cuts that will land hardest on those with the fewest resources, particularly people with disabilities, older adults, youth, and people with low incomes for whom transit is not optional.
Failing to implement this measure could create significant financial burdens for Bay Area residents, particularly transit riders, who are more likely to be low-income than the general population. SPUR estimates that transit riders who shift some trips to driving due to service cuts would spend $3,280 more in fuel, tolls, and parking costs annually, and that does not include the cost of purchasing or insuring a vehicle. SPUR estimates that the cost of the measure for individuals earning up to 80% of the median income is $7 a month or $82 annually, a fraction of the increased cost of transportation if agencies are forced to cut service. Moreover, worsening traffic conditions and air quality would affect everyone, even those who do not use public transit.
Pros
• Prop. RTM would prevent catastrophic service cuts to BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit, the backbone of the Bay Area’s public transit system, which carries more than 1 million trips each weekday and accounts for more than 80% of all transit trips in the region.
• Maintaining robust transit services would enable people with disabilities, older adults, students, and low-income workers to get where they need to go independently, affordably, and with dignity.
• A well-functioning transit system reduces car traffic and emissions, preventing gridlock and protecting climate progress.
• The measure emphasizes financial accountability and requires transit agencies to implement further efficiencies and cost controls to align expenses with available resources.
• It would provide meaningful resources to strengthen regional coordination of schedules and fares and make it easier for more people to use transit.
• It would provide significant funding in San Mateo and Santa Clara County for investments in local transit and transportation improvements.
• By supporting regional mobility, the measure would help ensure the Bay Area remains economically competitive and that residents have access to opportunity.
Con
• The measure would impose a new tax.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ba-prop-rtm-regional-transit-sales-tax)
Measure RTM: Regional Transit Measure
SPUR's Recommendation
The potential collapse of transit services poses a serious threat to the many people who rely on transit to access jobs, medical appointments, and groceries. Vulnerable groups — including people with disabilities, older adults, students, and low-income workers — would bear the brunt of service cuts. SPUR believes maintaining reliable transit funding outweighs concerns about the regressive nature of a sales tax.
Transit is also vital for the region’s economy: half of all transit trips are work-related, and transit supports access to job opportunities. Robust service, especially in the evenings, supports small businesses and major events. Without it, traffic congestion will worsen, raising transportation costs for everyone and negatively impacting quality of life and the region’s economy.
BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit account for more than 80% of transit trips in the region. Cutting their services would not only exacerbate traffic but also significantly increase air and climate pollution, jeopardizing environmental progress.
What Prop. RTM Would Do
Note: SPUR is a sponsor of Proposition RTM.
Proposition RTM is a 14-year, 5-county sales tax that would raise approximately $1 billion per year to preserve transit service. In addition to preventing cuts to BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit, the measure would raise revenue for regional rider-focused programs that make transit more seamless and easy to use. Most counties would also receive funding for local transit improvements and road maintenance. The tax rate would be 0.5% in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and San Mateo and 1% in San Francisco. The varied rates reflect differences in each county’s tax base and use of regional transit services.
• San Francisco: All revenues would fund the city’s share of regional transit services and provide support for Muni.
• Alameda: Most revenues would support and sustain regional transit operations, with $15.6 million each year for use on other local bus service and transit priorities.
• Contra Costa: Most funds would support and sustain regional transit operations, with $42.3 million each year for local bus service and transit priorities.
• Santa Clara: After meeting the contribution to regional transit services, the county would have approximately $264 million per year for local transportation priorities.
• San Mateo: After meeting the contribution to regional services, the county would have approximately $50 million annually for local transportation priorities.
Five percent of the revenues generated from the measure would fund its administration and rider-focused improvements such as discounted and coordinated fares, wayfinding, and accessibility improvements that make transit more seamless.
The measure includes strict oversight and transparency requirements:
• Independent financial reviews of BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit, with requirements to implement cost-saving recommendations in order to receive funds
• Citizen oversight of spending and performance.
• County-level oversight to ensure service standards are applied fairly, with authority to withhold funds for noncompliance.
State legislation authorized the measure, and a citizen initiative placed it on the ballot. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
The Backstory
Facing a fiscal cliff, BART, Caltrain, Muni, and AC Transit could undertake widespread service cuts beginning as soon as January 2027. Should Prop. RTM fail, the agencies have identified the following cuts:
• Caltrain: To close a $75 million deficit, close up to 10 stations, eliminate weekend service, reduce frequency to hourly, end service by 9 p.m., and potentially close corridor segments.
• BART: To close a $376 million deficit, cut more than 60% of service, reduce service to three primary lines with limited peak service on two others, and end service by 9 p.m. Longer-term cuts could include closing up to 15 stations and potentially the entire system.
• Muni: To close a $322 million deficit, eliminate nearly one-quarter of routes, end service after 9 p.m., and cut frequency on Metro, Rapid, and frequent routes by half.
• AC Transit: To address a $200 million four-year deficit, cut service by 16%, eliminate routes, reduce service hours and frequency (including transbay service), and leave only 13 of 74 lines unchanged.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Bay Area’s largest transit systems operated near capacity, collecting a significant share of operational funding from fares, parking revenues, and other local sources tied to the economy’s health. This model made them more self-sufficient compared with other agencies nationwide, but it also made them vulnerable to pandemic-related disruptions. With a large share of Bay Area jobs now remote, ridership and revenues are recovering more slowly than in other major metropolitan regions. Six years post-pandemic, riders have returned to transit, but they ride less frequently.
When federal and state COVID-relief funds are exhausted at the end of this year, BART, Caltrain, Muni, and AC Transit will face annual deficits of 25% to 45% of their operating budgets. They have been preparing for this fiscal crisis by reducing costs and stretching public funds. An independent review of AC Transit, BART, Caltrain and SF Muni found that they have collectively saved $1 billion in operating expenses in the last five years through various cost-saving actions.
Some have suggested shifting federal funds for capital projects (i.e., building new transit) to fill the operations gap. However, existing funding sources would still be insufficient to meet transit’s operating needs, even under the most optimistic scenarios. The funds available pale in comparison to the deficits, and most capital funding can’t be repurposed for operations due to legal requirements. In short, transit agencies cannot reallocate funds.
Additionally, transit, particularly rail, has high fixed costs. Cutting service doesn’t yield commensurate savings. Instead, it creates a downward spiral of fewer riders and, therefore, lower revenues, highlighting the need for new revenue.
Previous attempts to explore alternative revenue sources for Bay Area transit (including Senate Bill 532 and Senate Bill 1031) lacked political support.
Prop. RTM was a regional solution developed with the state legislature, elected county officials, and other stakeholders to ensure consensus on fair revenue distribution that supports transit and benefits residents in all five counties. The legislature authorized the measure by a two-thirds vote, and a citizen signature-gathering initiative placed it on the ballot. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
Equity Impacts
As a flat sales tax, Prop. RTM is regressive, meaning it takes a larger percentage of income from low-income households. However, failing to implement this measure would trigger devastating service cuts that will land hardest on those with the fewest resources, particularly people with disabilities, older adults, youth, and people with low incomes for whom transit is not optional.
Failing to implement this measure could create significant financial burdens for Bay Area residents, particularly transit riders, who are more likely to be low-income than the general population. SPUR estimates that transit riders who shift some trips to driving due to service cuts would spend $3,280 more in fuel, tolls, and parking costs annually, and that does not include the cost of purchasing or insuring a vehicle. SPUR estimates that the cost of the measure for individuals earning up to 80% of the median income is $7 a month or $82 annually, a fraction of the increased cost of transportation if agencies are forced to cut service. Moreover, worsening traffic conditions and air quality would affect everyone, even those who do not use public transit.
Pros
• Prop. RTM would prevent catastrophic service cuts to BART, Muni, Caltrain, and AC Transit, the backbone of the Bay Area’s public transit system, which carries more than 1 million trips each weekday and accounts for more than 80% of all transit trips in the region.
• Maintaining robust transit services would enable people with disabilities, older adults, students, and low-income workers to get where they need to go independently, affordably, and with dignity.
• A well-functioning transit system reduces car traffic and emissions, preventing gridlock and protecting climate progress.
• The measure emphasizes financial accountability and requires transit agencies to implement further efficiencies and cost controls to align expenses with available resources.
• It would provide meaningful resources to strengthen regional coordination of schedules and fares and make it easier for more people to use transit.
• It would provide significant funding in San Mateo and Santa Clara County for investments in local transit and transportation improvements.
• By supporting regional mobility, the measure would help ensure the Bay Area remains economically competitive and that residents have access to opportunity.
Con
• The measure would impose a new tax.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ba-prop-rtm-regional-transit-sales-tax)
Proposition 1: California Veteran and Housing Assistance Programs Bond Measure
SPUR's Recommendation
California’s housing affordability crisis continues to worsen, largely because of a supply shortage and inadequate funding to build more. Even with lower construction costs, affordable housing construction and preservation would still require significant, consistent government subsidies. Thousands of approved affordable housing projects have stalled because of a lack of financing.
General obligation bonds are needed periodically to replenish funding for the state’s main affordable housing finance programs. Prop. 1’s proposed bond funds pair with state and federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits to finance affordable housing developments. This measure is critical to expanding affordable housing opportunities for lower-income residents across California through new construction, preservation, and homebuyer assistance. Funds would be distributed through well-established state programs with a proven track record of success.
What Prop. 1 Would Do
According to the California Housing Partnership, Proposition 1 will help finance more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable rental homes and help 20,000 California households attain homeownership. The bond proceeds would replenish key long-standing state affordable housing financing programs and be allocated as follows:
$5.10 billion for the Multifamily Housing Program. At least 10% of units in each development receiving these funds must be affordable to extremely low-income households.
$1.25 billion in self-supporting revenue bonds for the CalVet Home Loan Program to help veterans and military families buy a home. These bonds are repaid entirely through mortgage payments and do not rely on taxpayer funding.
$1.15 billion for supportive housing administered through the Multifamily Housing Program. The program requires funding to create a reserve account to cover operating deficits for developments receiving funding.
$750 million for the Portfolio Reinvestment Program to rehabilitate and extend the long-term affordability of state-funded multifamily rental housing projects that are at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.
$600 million for the CalHOME Program for new construction of affordable ownership homes.
$500 million for the My Home down payment assistance program for lower- and moderate-income households.
$500 million for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program of 2019 for grants supporting infrastructure needed to support developing affordable and mixed-income housing in infill locations.
$450 million to the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Program to fund grants or loans for the construction or rehabilitation of housing for agricultural employees and their families.
$350 million for new affordable student housing projects split evenly between the University of California and California State University systems.
$200 million for the Tribal Housing Grant Program to finance housing and housing-related activities enabling tribes to rebuild and reconstitute their communities.
$200 million for a program to be created by the Legislature that funds acquisition and rehabilitation of unrestricted housing units (i.e., unsubsidized housing that may naturally be affordable) and the attachment of long-term affordability restrictions to the units.
$200 million to the Local Housing Trust Fund Program to fund competitive grants and loans to local housing trust funds that develop, own, lend, or create or preserve affordable housing.
The Backstory
The state has historically used voter-approved general obligation bonds to fund affordable housing programs. In 2018, voters approved Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, which provided $4 billion in funding, including $1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs program and $3 billion for various affordable housing programs. As of fiscal year 2023–24, when the 2018 Prop. 1 bond funding ran out, 22,735 units of housing had been produced.
Enterprise Community Partners’ 2026 California Affordable Housing Production Pipeline report, released in March, found that nearly 40,000 approved affordable housing units are frozen due to a lack of funding and could be built with this new financing source.
The proposed bond has undergone a rigorous process and has broad support. Over the past four years, the Legislature has introduced various affordable housing bond measures, including bills by Assemblymember Wicks and Senator Cabaldon. Those bills have moved through the legislative process over the past year and a half, giving the members of the Legislature multiple opportunities to negotiate the terms. Governor Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Limón, and Assembly Speaker Rivas negotiated final amendments for the authorizing legislation, SB 417, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. The State Legislature voted with supermajorities in each house to place the proposition on the November 2026 ballot.
Legislative analyses of the measure find the total cost to pay off the bonds would be approximately $17.39 billion in principal and interest. Average annual debt service payments from the State’s General Fund are estimated at approximately $580 million when all bonds are sold, assuming an interest rate of 4.02% and a 30-year maturity. This amount of annual debt service represents about 0.26% of the State’s General Fund budget.
According to the State of California Debt Affordability Report issued by the state treasurer in October 2025, California’s ratio of General Fund-supported debt service to General Fund revenues was 3.59% in fiscal year 2024–25 and was estimated to be 3.95% in fiscal year 2025–26*.* This ratio is in line with the 4% historical average for bonded indebtedness.
A simple majority (50% plus one vote) of California voters is required to pass Prop. 1.
Equity Impacts
The Bay Area Equity Atlas finds that all nine Bay Area counties struggle to come anywhere close to meeting their state-mandated share of new housing construction. In 2023 and 2024, the Bay Area permitted just 9% of its required units, including only 5% of required very-low-income units and 10% of required low-income units.
This lack of affordable housing options increases displacement pressures on lower-income households and households of color. The Bay Area Equity Atlas’s Black Communities and the Bay Area's Housing Crisis report, published in April 2025, found the Bay Area lost more than 5,000 Black-owned households during the 2010s, with significant declines in historic Black communities in the East Bay, San Francisco, and Solano County, while the number of Black renter households increased by just 300.
Sufficient funding to create below-market-rate rental and homeownership opportunities will help address the affordability challenges and displacement pressures faced by lower-income households, Black households, and other households of color.
Pros
• The state faces a chronic affordable housing crisis that cannot be addressed without significant ongoing public investment to lower housing costs for lower-income households.
• The bond would make the most of recent federal changes to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program that allow California to nearly double its affordable housing production: if the state invests $4.1 billion annually, it can leverage $6.7 billion in available federal funding.
• The funding would be distributed through existing state programs with a proven track record of producing affordable housing options for lower-income residents.
• The Bay Area is well positioned to use the funds effectively, given the number of highly effective nonprofit affordable housing developers here.
Con
• The bond would contribute to the state’s debt burden, with debt service on the bond representing 0.26% of the overall State General Fund budget.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-1-affordable-housing-bond)
Proposition 2: California Budget Stabilization Account Cap Increase and Gann Limit Changes Amendment
SPUR's Recommendation
Given the volatile nature of California’s tax revenue structure, adequate reserve requirements are necessary to avoid severe service reductions during economic downturns. The proposed measure would better manage this boom-and-bust cycle by requiring greater savings during good times to avoid deeper reductions during bad ones — when public safety-net services are most needed.
What Prop. 2 Would Do
Proposition 2 would modify California’s Budget Stabilization Account (the state’s rainy day fund) to
• Increase the maximum reserve balance from 10% to 20% of the state’s annual general fund revenues.
• Require additional revenue deposits to increase the reserve and repay certain state long-term debts during periods of extraordinary revenue growth.
• Expand the definition of long-term debts eligible for repayment from the reserve and extend these requirements from 2030 to 2040.
• Clarify the account’s interaction with state constitutional limits on appropriations (setting funds aside for a specific purpose).
The Backstory
California’s tax system produces volatile revenues because it relies heavily on personal income taxes, particularly capital gains. Consequently, revenues rise when the economy and stock market are strong and can fall by billions during downturns, creating boom-and-bust budget cycles. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) notes that these swings are an inherent feature of California’s revenue structure and are likely to continue, making a strong reserve policy an important tool for maintaining stable public services over time.
In response, California voters approved Proposition 2 in 2014, establishing a constitutional rainy day reserve known as the Budget Stabilization Account. During strong revenue years, the state must put half of excess revenues into the reserve until the reserve totals 10% of annual General Fund revenues. The other half must be used to pay down specific long-term debts and liabilities through 2030. According to the LAO, Proposition 2 has substantially improved California’s fiscal resilience, allowing the state to build larger reserves that have helped cushion recent budget deficits. Nevertheless, the LAO concludes that the current reserve structure remains insufficient to offset the magnitude of California’s long-term revenue volatility, leaving the state vulnerable to significant budget reductions during prolonged downturns. While California’s reserves have grown, they remain relatively low: the state ranks fifth in the nation for revenue volatility but only twenty-eighth for reserve levels.
This election’s Prop. 2 seeks to strengthen California’s reserve framework by increasing both the size of required reserve deposits and the maximum amount the state may accumulate in the reserve. The measure would double the constitutional cap on the reserve from 10% to 20%, require larger deposits to the reserve during years of exceptionally strong capital gains tax revenue growth, broaden the defined debts that may be paid down with other required deposits, and extend these debt payment obligations from 2030 to 2040.
The LAO concludes that these changes would allow California to save substantially more during boom years and better prepare for future recessions, although it also notes that even larger reserves would ultimately provide greater long-term protection against the state’s unusually volatile revenue base. The LAO estimates that the current reserve equal to 10% of revenues would cover about 30% of future budget gaps, while the proposed 20% reserve would cover about half of future gaps.
Finally, Prop. 2 would make several constitutional and procedural changes related to the state appropriations limit established by the Gann Limit, which imposes requirements on how the state can spend General Fund revenues. Under current law, reserve deposits count toward the appropriations limit when made, even though the funds are merely set aside rather than spent. The measure would instead count withdrawals from these accounts (spending), rather than deposits (setting funds aside). This approach better aligns the appropriations limit with the state’s reserve policy by allowing the state to save excess revenues without triggering the spending limit, while ensuring those funds count against the limit when ultimately spent.
The California Legislature placed the measure on the ballot, and it requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) for approval.
Equity Impacts
Over time, the measure would improve services for vulnerable communities that disproportionately rely on state-administered and state-funded programs. By building reserves during better economic times to minimize state budget reductions during recessions and economic downturns, the state would be better able to meet demand for public safety-net services, which often increases during those periods.
Pros
• Prop. 2 would improve the state’s rainy day account requirements to better manage the boom-and-bust nature of the state’s volatile revenue structure, better matching spending and revenues over time.
• By improving the stability of the state’s fiscal management, the measure would benefit California city and county governments that often face state budget reductions during economic downturns.
• By extending mandatory requirements to pay down debts and long-term liabilities, the measure would reduce the state’s long-term costs.
• The measure would rationalize the reserve’s interaction with state constitutional appropriation limit requirements.
Con
• The maximum required balance for the Budget Stabilization Account would cover only about 50% of revenue losses during a typical economic downturn.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-2-rainy-day-fund)
Proposition 3: California Renew State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative
SPUR's Recommendation
Prop. 3 would make permanent an existing high-earner tax that funds K–12/community college education, children’s healthcare, and debt paydown. This tax has generated more than $119 billion for education and healthcare, with no evidence that it has driven high earners out of state. It’s highly progressive, hitting only top earners while sustaining programs such as universal school meals that disproportionately benefit low-income students, and it would help backfill Medi-Cal funding just as federal cuts threaten healthcare access for millions of low-income Californians. The trade-offs are modest: permanence would limit future tax flexibility, and reliance on capital-gains-linked income would keep revenue volatile. But given the tax's proven track record and the increasingly dramatic funding gaps the tax would help fill in the wake of H.R. 1, SPUR supports making it permanent.
What Prop. 3 Would Do
Proposition 3 would amend the California Constitution to permanently extend the state’s marginal income tax rates on the top 2% of earners, which have been in place since 2012 under Proposition 55 and are set to expire in 2030. In 2025, the top 2% income bracket started at $371,001 a year for individuals and $743,001 a year for couples filing jointly. The tax applies to salaries, wages, interest, and profits from stocks, property, and other investments.
Revenue would primarily support K–12 schools and community colleges under 1988’s Proposition 98. About 40% — $2 billion to $6 billion annually — would go to education, while remaining funds could support children’s healthcare, the Budget Stabilization Account (rainy day fund), and other General Fund uses. Because the revenue counts toward the state’s required education funding, it frees up General Fund dollars for other programs.
If the tax rates set in 2012 expire, the state would lose between $5 billion and $15 billion annually. In the short term, the state would need other General Fund revenues to meet education funding requirements; over time, the Proposition 98-mandated spending minimum could decline depending on the formula in use, economic conditions, and legislative decisions.
The Backstory
California’s personal income tax structure is the most progressive in the country (meaning the tax rate is higher the more income one earns). Voters approved Prop. 30 in 2012 to temporarily raise rates on high earners, then extended it through Prop. 55 in 2016 (expiring in 2030). Before Prop. 30, the top rate was 9.3%.
The tax structure for the top 2% of earners in California under different scenarios depends on whether Prop. 3 passes.
Single Filer Income Tax Rates Under Prop. 3
• Taxable Income (brackets adjusted annually for inflation): $371,001–$446,000; Marginal Tax Rate (now through 2030): 10.3%; If Prop. 3 Passes: 10.3%; If Prop. 3 Is Rejected: 9.3%
• Taxable Income (brackets adjusted annually for inflation): $446,001–$743,000; Marginal Tax Rate (now through 2030): 11.3%; If Prop. 3 Passes: 11.3%; If Prop. 3 Is Rejected: 9.3%
• Taxable Income (brackets adjusted annually for inflation): Above $743,000; Marginal Tax Rate (now through 2030): 12.3%; If Prop. 3 Passes: 12.3%; If Prop. 3 Is Rejected: 9.3%
Joint/Other Filer Income Tax Rates Under Prop. 3
• Taxable Income (brackets adjusted annually for inflation): $743,001–$892,000; Marginal Tax Rate (now through 2030): 10.3%; If Prop. 3 Passes: 10.3%; If Prop. 3 Is Rejected: 9.3%
• Taxable Income (brackets adjusted annually for inflation): $892,001–$1.5 million; Marginal Tax Rate (now through 2030): 11.3%; If Prop. 3 Passes: 11.3%; If Prop. 3 Is Rejected: 9.3%
• Taxable Income (brackets adjusted annually for inflation): Above $1.5 million; Marginal Tax Rate (now through 2030): 12.3%; If Prop. 3 Passes: 12.3%; If Prop. 3 Is Rejected: 9.3%
Source: Legislative Analyst’s Office, A.G. File No. 2025-016 (https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2025-016)
Prop. 98 requires California to provide a minimum level of funding for K–12 schools and community colleges each year, based on state revenues, economic growth, and student enrollment. Local property taxes also contribute to the Prop. 98 minimum. Together, these requirements typically direct about 40% of General Fund revenues to education.
Of the education funding, 89% goes to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges. None of the funding can be used for administrative costs. After meeting education requirements, revenues go to debt service and the rainy day fund; 50% of remaining funds, capped at $2 billion annually, may support Medi-Cal children’s and family health services.
Medi-Cal provides free or low-cost health care to nearly 15 million Californians. This funding is especially important after federal bill H.R. 1 made major cuts to health care and food assistance. Federal Medicaid cuts could cost Medi-Cal tens of billions of dollars annually and cause up to 2 million Californians to lose coverage.
Since January 1, 2012, the top-earner income tax has generated more than $119 billion for education and healthcare, helping more than double school funding and support transitional kindergarten, expanded learning, free school meals, COVID-19 recovery, and teacher recruitment. Before the passage of Prop. 30, California ranked 50th among states in per-student education spending. Now it ranks 16th (or 31st when accounting for the state’s cost of living). However, because 80% of school spending goes to staff salaries and benefits, the state still has 22 students per teacher, compared with 15.4 nationally.
Recently, the tax has generated about $9 billion to $10 billion annually, although revenues fluctuate with the economy and stock market. The LAO estimates annual revenues could range from $5 billion to $15 billion.
Notably, high earners have not fled the state because of this tax; California has had the second-lowest out-migration rate among $200,000-plus households of any state over the past decade. The state has lost less-educated and lower-income adults faster than higher-income and college-educated adults because of affordability and cost-of-living concerns.
Californians for Protecting Public Education, Health Care and Budget Stability led the effort to put Proposition 3 on the ballot, with funding from the California Teachers Association and California Federation of Teachers. Some proponents oppose Prop. 40, the Billionaire Tax, out of concern that it could undermine support for Prop. 3.
A citizen-initiated measure, Prop. 3 needs a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
Equity Impacts
Allowing the state’s marginal income tax rates on the top 2% of earners to expire would require major cuts to education spending on the next generation of Californians, which would disproportionately impact low-income children and students of color. This income tax revenue enabled California to become the first state offering free breakfast and lunch to all TK–12 students, plus free after-school programs prioritizing low-income neighborhoods.
California’s educational funding formula, the Local Control Funding Formula, directs the most resources to students who face the greatest educational hurdles, including grants for English learners, foster youth, homeless students, and low-income families in high-poverty districts.
Prop. 3 would backfill federal cuts and sustain up to $2 billion in annual funding for Medi-Cal, most of which goes to low-income people and people of color. Without state budget and policy intervention, the cuts from H.R. 1 are expected to completely destabilize California’s healthcare and hospital system, exacerbate food insecurity, and cause children to miss routine screenings and vaccines.
The measure is highly progressive; it does not increase taxes on couples earning less than $743,001 or individuals earning less than $341,001, in today’s dollars.
Pros
• Prop. 3 would help backfill ongoing funding needs for children’s healthcare and Medi-Cal, which is facing severe federal funding cuts.
• The measure would tax only California’s highest earners.
• It would not increase the current income tax rate, which was set in 2012.
• Any leftover capital-gains-driven revenue would lower state debt and help build the rainy day fund, which supports the state’s financial health and mitigates the volatility of this funding source.
• There is no evidence that the tax has contributed to any significant tax flight from the state.
• Because the tax is permanent, it would facilitate greater predictability in state revenues.
Cons
• The state’s reliance on taxing the highest income earners would increase state budget volatility.
• The measure is restrictive: it would require meeting the Prop. 98 education minimum before allowing flexibility in funding allocation.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-3-high-earner-income-tax-extension)
Proposition 4: California Allow Public Financing of Election Campaigns Measure
SPUR's Recommendation
California campaigns are expensive and donor-dependent. Public financing brings in more small-dollar donors, lowers barriers for first-time and under-resourced candidates, and increases candidate diversity and voter engagement. These benefits align with SPUR’s view that equitable representation requires campaign finance reform. Financing programs would add costs and create administrative burden, but because governments would opt in to Prop. 4, they would retain flexibility over whether and how to implement it. SPUR supports clearing this state-level barrier and letting cities, counties, and the state decide for themselves.
What Prop. 4 Would Do
Proposition 4 would give state and local jurisdictions the option of creating a public financing program for candidates running for office. If state and local governments opt in, they would have to develop spending limits and criteria for candidates to qualify for public funds. Candidates would be barred from using public finance dollars for legal defense fees, fines, or to repay personal loans to a campaign. The source of funding, such as a city’s General Fund or a property tax, is left to local governments, but the funds cannot come from money earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.
The Backstory
California has one main law governing campaign finance. In 1974, Proposition 9 created the Political Reform Act. This act regulates campaign finance disclosure, contributions, expenditures, lobbying practices, and government conflicts of interest and ethics. It has been amended more than 200 times. In 1988, Proposition 73 banned public campaign funding on the grounds that too much money was being spent on political campaigns and that public funds should be directed to other priorities.
Since then, several ballot measures have attempted to reshape the state’s public financing landscape with varying success. Proposition 34, passed in 2000, imposed contribution, transfer, and voluntary spending limits for candidates listed in the ballot pamphlet that remain largely in effect today. In 2016, the Legislature passed a measure that would have lifted the state’s ban on public financing, but the courts ruled that it needed to go to the voters. The legislature addressed this issue in 2025, resulting in Prop. 4 on the 2026 ballot.
Wealthy donors and corporate-funded political ads often dominate elections in California, sidelining everyday voters and eroding public trust in government. Lobbying groups spent more than $500 million to influence the state government in 2024, the most ever. Prop. 4 does not set a limit on this activity but aims to help level the playing field by providing public funding to candidates who do not have access to support from wealthy individuals or corporations.
Campaigns have become increasingly expensive to run at all levels. At the state level, according to the organization Common Cause, it costs roughly $1 million to run and win a California Assembly seat and $1.7 million to run and win a State Senate seat. As a result, megadonors and outside interests routinely foot the bill and, in the process, discourage those without wealthy networks from running.
Current state law permits public campaign financing only in charter cities, not at the state level or in non-charter cities. Of California's 121 charter cities, 6 have public financing programs: Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Richmond, and San Francisco. Nationally, 20 other cities and counties and 14 states have public campaign financing. Public financing programs vary from grants and vouchers to matching programs. Los Angeles and San Francisco have a 6:1 matching fund — every $1 donated by a resident is matched by $6 from the city — with a cap depending on the office a candidate is running for. Seattle and Oakland offer Democracy Dollars, whereby every resident over 18 receives four $25 vouchers to donate to their preferred local candidate(s).
States with Public Campaign Financing Systems
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures (https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview)
State Public Campaign Financing Programs
• State: Arizona; Enacted: 1998; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: Connecticut; Enacted: 2005; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: Florida; Enacted: 1986; Program Type: Small donor multiple match; Offices: Statewide offices
• State: Hawaii; Enacted: 1979; Program Type: Small donor single match; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature, county offices
• State: Maine; Enacted: 1996; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Governor, legislature
• State: Maryland; Enacted: 1974; Program Type: Small donor progressive match; Offices: Governor
• State: Massachusetts; Enacted: 1975; Program Type: Small donor single match; Offices: Statewide offices
• State: Michigan; Enacted: 1976; Program Type: Small donor multiple match and partial grants; Offices: Governor
• State: Minnesota; Enacted: 1974; Program Type: Partial grants and refunds; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: New Jersey; Enacted: 1974; Program Type: Multiple match; Offices: Governor
• State: New Mexico; Enacted: 2003; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Statewide judicial offices, district judges
• State: New York; Enacted: 2020; Program Type: Small donor progressive match; Offices: Statewide offices, legislature
• State: Rhode Island; Enacted: 1988; Program Type: Progressive match; Offices: Statewide offices
• State: Vermont; Enacted: 1997; Program Type: Full grants; Offices: Governor, lieutenant governor
Source: Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/guide-public-financing-programs-nationwide)
Evidence suggests public campaign financing can lead to more small-dollar donors, greater donor diversity, and a broader range of people running for office. A 2022 University of Washington study found that in the two election cycles since Seattle implemented its program, the number of donors per race increased by 350%. Donations of less than $200 increased by 270%, and the number of candidates rose by 86%. A separate analysis also found that some residents were almost 12 times more likely to vote if they participated in the program, and low-income Seattleites and people of color were more likely to use their vouchers than they were to give a cash donation.
The Government Accountability Office's review of five programs (Arizona, Los Angeles, Minnesota, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Seattle) found that publicly financed candidates performed better than candidates who did not opt in. A participating candidate won or advanced in at least 50% of all contests in four of the five locations — reaching 85% to 95% in some Minnesota and Los Angeles elections. In matching-fund and voucher programs, candidates consistently received far more, but smaller, contributions; for example, in Los Angeles's 2022 mayoral race, publicly financed candidates averaged around 6,600 contributions of about $530 each, while non-participants averaged approximately 560 contributions of almost $25,000 each.
Prop. 4 was placed on the ballot legislatively through Senate Bill 42 (2025) and requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
Equity Impacts
Wealthy, often demographically narrow donor networks currently dominate California campaign funding, and this falls hardest along lines of race, income, and geography. Oakland’s 2023 campaign finance measure (Measure W) was proposed to address this disparity. Research found that campaign contributions gave disproportionate power to donors outside Oakland and in the city's wealthier, whiter neighborhoods. That disproportionate power muted the political voice of lower-income residents and communities of color in their own local elections.
Public financing can counter such impacts. In Seattle, low-income residents and people of color were more likely to use Democracy Dollars than to make a cash donation, meaning the model activates participation among populations least engaged by traditional, wealth-dependent giving. Voucher users were also substantially more likely to vote. By lowering the fundraising bar, public financing also opens pathways for candidates without wealthy networks (often candidates of color, women, and working-class candidates) to run competitively, diversifying who’s on the ballot, not just who funds them. Prop 4 could encourage more candidates to run for office and help the candidate pools better reflect local racial, gender, and socioeconomic diversity.
Because Prop. 4 is optional for cities, these equity gains depend on which jurisdictions adopt and properly fund programs (as the research on Oakland’s still-unfunded Measure W shows). But removing the state-level barrier allows every California city and county to build systems that broaden who can run and whose voices matter locally.
Pros
• Prop. 4 could encourage more candidates to run for office who reflect California’s racial, gender, and socioeconomic diversity by lowering the barrier to entry for candidates without wealthy networks, name recognition, or fundraising experience.
• The measure would foster more small donors and reduce reliance on big money.
• Public campaign financing can increase voter engagement and turnout when using vouchers.
• The measure would allow local flexibility and would be optional, rather than a mandate, reducing the risk of a one-size-fits-all system.
Cons
• Evidence on whether public campaign financing can reduce big-money influence in elections is mixed. Prop. 4 would not limit campaign financing through independent expenditures and political action committees, which have had outsized influence on elections since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision.
• Prop. 4 would present a cost to taxpayers.Public financing requires ongoing public money through General Fund appropriations, dedicated taxes, or fees.
• The measure would entail administrative burden and complexity. Campaign financing programs require qualification review, spending-limit enforcement, audits, fraud detection, and other processes.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-4-campaign-financing)
Proposition 5: California Eliminate State Officer Recall Successor Elections Amendment
SPUR's Recommendation
Prop. 5 would help California avoid scenarios in which a successor can take statewide office with only a small plurality of votes. It would eliminate an incentive structure that has made recalls an attractive strategic partisan tool for removing elected officials without majority support. Replacing a plurality-rule special election with an institutional process tied to officials who themselves were elected by a majority of voters represents a more democratic and coherent outcome than the status quo.
What Prop. 5 Would Do
Proposition 5 would amend the California Constitution to change how state officer recall elections work in three key ways.
First, when voters choose to recall an elected official, they also choose that person’s successor on the same ballot. Prop. 5 would eliminate the successor election and instead fill the office through existing constitutional succession rules. These rules require the governor to fill non-legislative office vacancies (e.g., secretary of state, attorney general, controller) by appointment, and special elections to fill legislative office vacancies (senator, assemblymember).
Second, if a governor is recalled, Prop. 5 would require the lieutenant governor to assume the governorship for the remainder of the term. If the governor is successfully recalled before the close of nomination for the next statewide election, a special election would be held at the next statewide primary. This special election would prevent an unelected appointed governor from holding office for a full four-year term.
Third, Prop. 5 removes the prohibition on recalled officers running for the same office in a subsequent special election to fill their seat.
State Senator Josh Newman, who was recalled in 2019, and Assemblymember Isaac Bryan introduced the measure in 2023. The legislation was referred to the 2026 state ballot and requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
The Backstory
California voters authorized the recall process in 1911 through a ballot measure that passed with 76.8% of the vote. The current recall process for state officers requires that voters elect a successor on the same ballot. The recalled official is prohibited from appearing as a candidate on the successor ballot. If a recall is successful, the replacement candidate who receives the most votes takes office immediately.
Current voting requirements for candidates to win regular elections (with two final candidates) differ from those for candidates in recall elections (with multiple candidates). A candidate can prevail in a recall successor race with a plurality of votes (the most votes, even if it's not more than 50%) rather than a majority (more than 50%). All voters may vote for a replacement candidate on the same ballot as the recall, regardless of whether they voted yes or no on the initial recall question. In the successful 2003 gubernatorial recall, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger replaced Governor Gray Davis with only 48.6% of the vote. The attempted 2021 recall of Governor Gavin Newsom renewed attention to the process.
Most states that allow recalls already use either established succession rules or a separate special election. Since 1913, 179 recall attempts have targeted California state elected officials; 11 qualified for the ballot, and six officials were ultimately recalled.
The current recall system benefits the minority party in state politics because it offers an additional opportunity outside the normal election cycle to elect minority-party candidates. This election would occur at a moment of discontent with the majority-party officeholder, which is likely to increase the minority party’s chances of electing its candidate. In the near term, this advantage would favor Republicans, given that Democrats have held a majority in both the state legislature and the governorship since 2011.
State Gubernatorial Recall Provisions
Source: Ballotpedia, States with gubernatorial recall provisions (https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_gubernatorial_recall_provisions).
Equity Impacts
Prop. 5’s equity implications are largely procedural rather than direct, but two dynamics are worth weighing.
First, the current successor-election system allows a candidate to take statewide office with a plurality of the vote — sometimes well under 50% — which can dilute the influence of any single bloc of voters, including communities of color. The current dynamic of off-cycle election timing is known to widen underrepresentation by shrinking and skewing the electorate toward already-engaged, disproportionately white and older voters. Prop. 5 would increase the likelihood that gubernatorial successor elections are pushed to an on-cycle election, reducing the risk of underrepresentation from various voting blocs.
Second, eliminating the simultaneous successor vote does reduce one direct opportunity for voters to weigh in on a successor, which could be read as narrowing immediate civic participation. However, the constitutional succession process (e.g., replacing a recalled governor with the lieutenant governor, who was elected statewide) preserves a democratically legitimate alternative.
Pros
• Prop. 5 would reduce the risk that a recall election would install an officeholder who lacks majority support. The change would align recall outcomes more closely with how California fills other vacancies.
• The measure would discourage political actors from using recalls as a strategic end-run around the normal election cycle by calculating they could win a low-turnout plurality race even without majority public support.
• It would provide more predictability and stability in succession for gubernatorial recalls because the lieutenant governor (already elected statewide) fills the vacancy under established, non-ad-hoc rules rather than through a compressed, high-stakes special election.
• It would clarify decisions for voters who may be confused by the current successor election process, which is inherently more complicated than a single choice to recall or not recall an officer.
• It would reduce the likelihood that voters would choose not to recall an elected officer because they are concerned about their successor. It would increase the likelihood that votes are cast to address actual non-partisan concerns about the officer targeted by the recall election.
Cons
• Prop. 5 would require an additional election for recalls in the legislature, which could increase the cost of filling a vacancy in those seats.
• The measure would allow appointees who were not elected to hold the governorship and preside over a lame-duck period, thereby potentially weakening the leadership’s ability to enact strong policy.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-5-recall-process-reform)
Proposition 37: California Second Mortgage Homebuyer Program and Revenue Bond Initiative
SPUR's Recommendation
SPUR supports the creation of new tools and financing to promote homeownership, and these revenue bonds would have no impact on the state’s General Fund. The focus on new construction will increase the supply of for-sale homes in the state and allow homebuyers to build generational wealth through home equity. While Prop. 37 could have focused more specifically on supporting populations that face barriers to homeownership, we believe its contribution to overall homeownership rates makes it worthy of support.
What Prop. 37 Would Do
Proposition 37 would authorize revenue bonds for fixed-rate second mortgages for buyers of newly built homes, helping them afford a 20% down payment. Home loan borrowers would have to repay the bonds and administrative costs. The California Housing Finance Agency would offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a newly constructed home. The bonds could not be used for existing homes. Other requirements:
• Homebuyers would have to make a minimum 3% down payment.
• Second-mortgage loans would be limited to 17% of a home’s purchase price.
• Homebuyers would put down 20% equity at purchase to eliminate the need for private mortgage insurance.
• The maximum sales price for a qualified new home could not exceed 125% of the Federal Housing Finance Agency conforming loan limit for that county. (For example, the 2026 limit for San Francisco is $1,249,125; 125% of that limit would be $1,561,406).
• Homebuyers would have to be California residents for at least one year and would agree to occupy the home as a primary residence.
• Family income could not exceed 200% of the area median income (AMI) in the county or metropolitan statistical area where the new home is located.
The Backstory
The cost of housing in California has made homeownership increasingly challenging for many households, especially for Black and Latinx families who have experienced housing discrimination and have less inherited wealth, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
This second-mortgage program would be available to households earning up to 200% of AMI, or $401,600 for a family of four in San Francisco.
Homeownership assistance has been a priority for former State Senator Bob Hertzberg. In 2022, he attempted to get a measure similar to Prop. 37 on the ballot through the state Legislature, but it failed. Former State Senator Anthony Portantino picked up the effort after Hertzberg was termed out of office, but he couldn't move legislation either. Hertzberg, now a private citizen, pivoted to a signature-gathering campaign and submitted more than 900,000 signatures this year to qualify Prop. 37 for the ballot. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
Equity Impacts
The racial equity impacts of Prop. 37 are unclear. While the Bay Area Equity Atlas found that the overall homeownership rate in the Bay Area is lower for Black (37%), Latinx (42%), and Native American (42%) households, this measure’s high cap of households earning up to 200% of AMI may disproportionately benefit Asian and white households, who have higher incomes and can more easily afford homeownership. In the Bay Area, the median income of Black and Latinx households is below 80% of AMI, according to U.S. Census data.
Pros
• Prop. 37 would potentially create more homeownership opportunities in a state that, at 55.8%, has one of the lowest homeownership rates in the nation.
• The measure focuses on new construction to increase housing supply rather than increasing demand for existing housing stock.
• It would require the California Housing Finance Agency to conduct an independent annual audit of the program to ensure that bond proceeds are used in a manner consistent with the requirements.
Cons
• Prop. 37 is not limited to first-time homebuyers and may therefore benefit Californians who could enter the market without its support.
• The program is not targeted to low- or moderate-income households, allowing households with earnings of up to 200% of AMI to qualify. The maximum sales price may go up to 125% of the Federal Housing Finance Agency conforming loan limit.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-37-homeowner-loans)
Proposition 39: California Voter Identification, Citizenship Verification, and Registered Voter List Administration Initiative
SPUR's Recommendation
California already has safeguards to protect election integrity. When registering, voters certify eligibility under penalty of perjury and provide identifying information. In-person voters state their name and address and sign the roster, while signature verification is used for vote-by-mail ballots. Illegal voting is a felony. California has no evidence of widespread voter fraud, despite allegations following the 2020 presidential election. Research has found that strict voter ID requirements can create barriers for voters who lack acceptable identification.
In September 2024, California enacted SB 1174, which prohibits local governments — including charter cities — from requiring voters to present identification to vote unless required by state or federal law. Prop. 39 would override this prohibition and establish a statewide voter ID requirement.
Implementing the strict voter ID requirements in this proposition could impose high costs on state and local governments. Without evidence of widespread voter fraud, adding barriers to voting and imposing significant implementation costs on already-strained public budgets is not a good investment.
What Prop. 39 Would Do
Proposition 39 would amend the California Constitution to add three new requirements to statewide voter rules:
Voters would need to present government-issued identification to vote in person or provide the last four digits of a government-issued identification number to vote by mail.
The state would be required to provide a free voter identification card to any voter who requests one.
The Secretary of State and county elections officials would be required to verify voters’ citizenship attestations and annually report the percentage of each county’s voter rolls that have been citizenship-verified.
The proposition language does not specify which forms of ID would qualify or how citizenship would be verified. Instead, it authorizes the Legislature to pass implementing legislation to work out those details after voters pass the initiative.
The Backstory
The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) was enacted to protect the constitutional right to vote for Black Americans and other minority groups. For decades, it provided federal oversight of elections in jurisdictions with histories of discrimination. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened key VRA provisions. As a result, states face fewer barriers to adopting stricter voter ID laws, reducing early voting, closing polling locations, and changing election procedures, raising concerns about voter access and representation.
Under the 2002 Help America Vote Act, all first-time voters in federal elections who registered by mail must show ID. California also verifies voter identity with a driver’s license number, state identification number, or the last four digits of a Social Security number when registering people to vote, attesting under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. In addition, states verify signatures on vote-by-mail ballots.
Since the 2020 presidential election, public claims of voter fraud have increased, despite extremely low instances in U.S. elections. Currently, 36 states require some form of identification at polling sites. Of those, only nine states have “strict” voter ID laws that require a voter to present an ID (some states require a photo ID; others do not) to cast a ballot. Voters without proper ID must cast a provisional ballot and then take additional steps before their ballot is officially counted. In the remaining 27 “non-strict” voter ID states, voters without proper ID can sign an affidavit verifying their identity (subject to perjury).
State Voter ID Requirements as of 2020
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures (https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
Recently, Republican Party leaders have made efforts to enact voter ID laws in California. In September 2024, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 1174, which prohibits local governments in California from enacting their own voter ID requirements. The state then sued Huntington Beach over its 2024 voter ID measure, arguing that state election law preempted it. In January 2026, the California Supreme Court sided with the state and struck down Huntington Beach’s local voter ID requirement.
In January 2025, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio introduced the California Voter ID and Election Integrity Act of 2025 (Assembly Bill 25), pursuing a legislative path to a statewide voter ID law. The bill failed on a party-line vote in April 2025. This year, a federal voter ID law, H.R.7296, the SAVE America Act, was introduced to Congress. If H.R. 7296 were to pass, voters in all states would be required to present photo identification showing U.S. citizenship when voting, preempting state laws.
Assemblymember DeMaio’s organization, Reform California, pursued the voter initiative process this year and gathered signatures for Prop. 39. If passed, California would join the nine states with strict voter ID requirements. Prop. 39 requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
Equity Impacts
Research consistently finds that voters of color, low-income individuals, elderly voters, students, people with disabilities, and those who recently changed their names are less likely to possess the specific government-issued IDs required under strict voter ID laws and are more likely to face barriers to obtaining them. Costs — including fees for birth certificates and other documents, transportation to government offices, and time away from work — can create additional burdens. Researchers have documented racial disparities in ID possession and evidence that strict voter ID requirements can widen racial turnout gaps. Approximately 13% of Black Americans lack acceptable voter ID, compared with 5% of white Americans, making voter ID laws a significant equity issue.
Pros
• SPUR could not identify any benefits to this measure.
Cons
• Studies have found that voter ID laws do not reduce actual or perceived voter fraud.
• Government-issued ID requirements can create barriers for eligible voters, increase ballot rejections from data-entry errors, slow voting, and disproportionately affect people who face challenges taking time off work, traveling to obtain ID, or securing required documentation.
• Including partial ID numbers with names and addresses on mail-ballot envelopes (as would be required under this proposition) could increase privacy and identity-theft risks when combined with information exposed through other data breaches.
• Prop. 39 would impose additional costs on state and local governments, with estimated one-time costs in the tens of millions of dollars and ongoing annual costs ranging from tens to hundreds of millions, depending on future legislative requirements.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-39-california-voter-id)
Proposition 41: California Prohibit Excluding New State Taxes from Spending Limit and Require Special Tax Audits Initiative
SPUR's Recommendation
More transparency and accountability in government spending are worthy objectives. However, the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the state auditor already have the authority to evaluate policies and programs to ensure they are equitable and efficient. Prop. 41 was primarily placed on the ballot to defeat Prop. 40, a measure to tax billionaires. In addition, it would constrain local and state governments’ ability to raise revenue now and in the future for much-needed housing, transportation, infrastructure, and social services, which are already facing cuts at the federal and state levels.
What Prop. 41 Would Do
Proposition 41 would require the state auditor, working with the Legislative Analyst’s Office, to conduct an independent review of any state-level citizen initiative that aims to create a new special tax once it reaches 25% of the required signature threshold to be placed on the ballot. (Special taxes differ from general taxes in that they dedicate revenue to a specific purpose.) All new state-level special taxes would be audited every four years.
Additionally, any new special taxes passed after January 1, 2026 — whether proposed through legislation or through voter initiatives — would be subject to the Gann Limit, a voter-imposed revenue spending limit explained in the Backstory section below.
The audit of proposed citizen initiatives would examine the individual programs that would receive funding through the special tax and assess whether the programs are sufficiently cost-efficient in their hiring and operating practices. It would recommend how the programs could save 10% of their costs. The audit information would be included in the voter information guide, which would increase printing and mailing costs by a few hundred thousand dollars per initiative, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
If a special tax passes, the state auditor would be required to conduct audits every four years to assess spending, evaluate efficiency, and recommend improvements. The auditor would consider public input when measuring the program’s effectiveness. The revenues generated would cover implementation costs. However, the state would pay the initial audit cost if voters rejected the special tax.
Prop. 41 is a countermeasure to the so-called billionaire tax, Prop. 40 (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/ca-prop-40-billionaire-tax). If both measures pass, the one receiving more votes would prevail.
The Backstory
Special taxes are taxes whose revenues are dedicated to a specific purpose rather than contributing to the state’s general fund budget. The State Legislature can levy special taxes with two-thirds voter approval, or an initiative placed on the ballot by voter signatures can do so with a simple majority (50% plus one vote). Currently, special taxes have no audit requirements or spending caps.
Since the late 1970s, California has faced numerous tax limitations through Prop. 13 and other constitutional amendments. The Gann Limit imposes requirements on how the state can spend General Fund revenues. If the state’s revenues exceed the Gann Limit — a dollar amount based on the state’s spending level in 1978–1979, adjusted for population and per capita income — half of revenues over the limit must be allocated to K–14 education and the other half returned to taxpayers. Historically, the Gann Limit has rarely affected distribution of the state’s revenues, but if the state experiences strong income gains (including business/corporate/stock gains) over the limit, it could result in decreasing investment in state priorities such as housing, health care, economic development, and infrastructure.
The fiscal impacts of Prop. 41 are unknown. Adding pages to the voter information guide would cost money, but the audits could also create savings. If this measure prevents the state from raising new revenues from future taxes, it could have a significant negative fiscal impact in the longer term.
Prop. 41 is a countermeasure to Prop. 40, a one-time special tax on individuals with more than $1 billion in assets. Prop. 40 is intended to offset federal funding cuts to critical social safety net programs, including Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The revenues generated from Prop. 40 would be exempt from the Gann Limit.
Prop. 41 was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering effort led by Building a Better California, which is funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass. If it passes with more votes than Prop. 40, it would nullify Prop. 40. (Building a Better California has also placed Prop. 42 (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/ca-prop-42-personal-property-taxes), a separate countermeasure to Prop. 40, on the ballot.)
Equity Impacts
Restricting spending from special taxes could negatively affect efforts to fund health care, food assistance, and other programs that disproportionately benefit lower-income Californians and communities of color.
Pro
• Audits of proposed citizen initiatives could help ensure that the programs they would fund are cost-effective.
Cons
• Prop. 41 was placed on the ballot to prevent a competing measure from succeeding. It could affect the state’s ability to raise revenue from other tax measures in the future.
• Applying spending limits to new revenue measures could constrain local and state governments’ ability to fund urgent priorities amid unprecedented federal and state budget cuts.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-41-audits-special-taxes)
Proposition 42: California Prohibit New Taxes on Retirement Holdings, Personal Assets, and Savings and Limit Retroactive Taxes Initiative
SPUR's Recommendation
Prop. 42 was primarily placed on the ballot to defeat Prop. 40, a competing tax measure on billionaires. If passed, it would constrain local and state governments’ current and future ability to raise revenues for much-needed housing, transportation, infrastructure, and social services, which are already facing cuts at the federal and state levels.
What Prop. 42 Would Do
Proposition 42 would block state and local governments from implementing any new taxes on personal property, including retirement holdings, personal savings, real estate, stocks, and other assets. It would prohibit retroactive taxes based on a person’s prior residency status.
The measure is designed to nullify Prop. 40 (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/ca-prop-40-billionaire-tax), which imposes a one-time excise tax of 5% on billionaires based on retroactive residency.
The Backstory
Federal bill H.R. 1, known as the “Big Beautiful Bill,” was enacted in July 2025 and will make heavy cuts to critical social safety net programs across the state, including about $19 billion in annual cuts to Medi-Cal, which covers half of children aged 0 to 5 and nearly 15 million low-income Californians. Funding cuts are projected to accelerate hospital closures across California, particularly in rural areas. They are also expected to heavily impact food assistance programs such as CalFresh and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which serves an estimated 5 million Californians.
The proposed Prop. 40 billionaire tax aims to help offset federal funding cuts. It would create a new tax on wealth, including financial assets such as stocks and intellectual property that California does not currently tax, and would apply retroactively to billionaires residing in California on or after January 1, 2026. California currently taxes income and property such as real estate, but not financial assets or other forms of wealth.
Prop. 42 was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering effort led by Building a Better California, which is funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires, to counter Prop. 40. It requires a simple majority to pass (50% plus one vote). If both Prop. 42 and Prop. 40 pass, the measure receiving more votes would prevail. (Building a Better California has also placed Prop. 41 (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/ca-prop-41-audits-special-taxes), a separate countermeasure to Prop. 40, on the ballot.)
Equity Impacts
California’s current tax system disproportionately benefits high-income households, while lower-income households bear a greater burden from high housing costs and regressive taxes such as property and sales taxes. California’s practice of not taxing inherited wealth and financial assets contributes to income inequality and persistent racial disparities. U.S. Census data show that low-income families in California are much more likely to be Latino or Black, while most high-income families are white or Asian.
This proposition, which restricts new taxes on personal property, including retirement holdings, personal savings, real estate, stocks, and other assets, would block efforts to create new progressive tax policies to fund important priorities, including health care, food assistance, and other programs that disproportionately benefit lower-income Californians and communities of color.
Pro
• Banning retroactive taxes would create more predictability for taxpayers.
Cons
• Prop. 42 was placed on the ballot to block a competing measure. It could affect the state’s ability to raise revenue from other tax measures in the future.
• Applying taxation limits would constrain governments’ ability to fund urgent priorities, especially amid unprecedented federal and state budget cuts.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-42-personal-property-taxes)
Proposition 43: California Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Special Tax Initiatives and Property Tax Initiative Prohibition Amendment
SPUR's Recommendation
SPUR has consistently called for reforming Prop. 13 and opposed onerous new restrictions on the government’s ability to raise needed revenue. Prop. 43 would take the state in the opposite direction. The measure would cement and expand Prop. 13's legacy by amending the California Constitution to establish a uniform two-thirds voter-approval threshold for imposing or extending any special tax. It would undermine both the democratic principle of majority rule and one of the few remaining pathways for funding important services.
What Prop. 43 Would Do
Proposition 43 would require a two-thirds vote of the electorate to approve all special taxes, whether placed on the ballot through citizen initiative (voter signatures) or by government officials.
Proposition 13 in 1978 amended the California constitution to limit local governments’ ability to impose, extend, or increase special taxes (taxes dedicated to a specific purpose) by requiring a minimum two-thirds approval by voters. In 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that taxes placed on the ballot by voters through signature gathering were not subject to this same two-thirds requirement. Prop. 43 seeks to overturn the 2017 decision and amend the constitution to establish a uniform two-thirds voter-approval requirement for any new, extended, or increased local special tax, regardless of whether the initiative was placed on the ballot by local government officials or through a voter initiative.
The Backstory
Prop. 43 is the latest proposal in a decades-long series of amendments to the California Constitution that have significantly limited local governments' ability to fund projects and services by imposing new taxes. In 1978, Prop. 13 capped property tax rates at 1% of assessed value and established the initial two-thirds voter requirement to approve special taxes. In 2017, however, the California Supreme Court clarified in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (Upland) that many of the key provisions in the California Constitution restricting the imposition of new taxes applied only to proposals put forward by the government. Consequently, the Upland decision established that new special tax measures submitted through citizen initiative required only a 50% plus one vote majority to pass rather than two-thirds approval. Since that decision, a number of local special taxes in California have passed with a simple majority after being placed on the ballot through voter initiative. Such measures account for only a small minority of revenue measures statewide.
Prop. 43 would establish a uniform two-thirds voter-approval threshold for new special taxes regardless of how they were placed on the ballot. The California Legislature placed the proposition on the ballot after reaching a compromise with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, which had another, similar proposal to amend the California Constitution. That proposal had qualified for the November 2026 ballot through a voter signature-gathering campaign. The compromise sidelines some of the more complex issues in the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association’s proposed amendment and instead offers a simplified amendment focused only on the voter threshold.
Prop. 43 requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass.
Equity Impacts
Prop. 43 would make it significantly more difficult to raise revenues for local government services and projects by requiring a higher approval threshold. It is likely that the resulting fiscal impacts to government, in the form of unfunded programs or expiring taxes that can no longer be renewed, would fall most heavily on lower-income residents and people of color. In the Bay Area, for example, the citizen initiative process has recently been used to propose taxes to support transit operations and has been discussed as a potential future pathway to place a regional affordable housing bond before the voters. Transit operations and affordable housing are both examples of government expenditures that disproportionately benefit lower-income residents and people of color and that will be difficult to sustain without viable approaches to securing new revenues.
Additionally, placing broad restrictions on how the electorate can raise taxes can drive the government to seek other, less equitable sources of revenue. The severe limitations Prop. 13 placed on property taxes, for example, have, among other factors, helped drive local governments to increasingly rely on sales taxes, a much more regressive revenue source.
Pros
• Prop. 43 would simplify existing law and establish a consistent, uniform voter threshold for imposing, extending, or increasing new special taxes.
• The measure would maintain the 50% plus one vote threshold for passing general taxes (those not dedicated to a specific purpose).
Cons
• Prop. 43 would undermine the basic principle of majority rule by imposing a heightened approval threshold on certain voter-proposed initiatives.
• The measure would continue and expand on the legacy of Prop. 13, a law that has profoundly distorted California’s tax structure, fueled wealth inequality, and exacerbated the state’s housing challenges by disincentivizing home sales and turnover.
• It would eliminate one of the few viable ways to raise local revenues at a time when local governments' fiscal needs are especially acute.
Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-11/ca-prop-43-local-tax-threshold)