Proposition 1: Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs – YES. Proposition 1 authorizes $11.25 billion in bonds: $10 billion for housing programs and $1.25 billion for veterans’ home loans. The housing portion includes $7.2 billion for affordable rental housing, $1.1 billion for homeownership programs, and targeted investments for farmworkers, students, tribal communities, and infrastructure. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the measure could support homeownership assistance for up to 40,000 households. Opponents emphasize the cost of repaying the bond; we emphasize the cost of doing too little. Decades of discrimination in lending, appraisal, and land-use policy helped create today’s racial wealth gap. A large, targeted investment in affordable rental housing and ownership is a direct step toward closing it. Implementation must include fair-lending enforcement, anti-displacement protections, and transparent distribution of funds to the communities with the greatest need.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 2: Increases the State’s Rainy Day Fund – YES. Proposition 2 raises the required reserve target from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax revenue, increases deposits when investment-income revenues surge, and extends extra debt payments through 2040. When recessions arrive, cuts to schools, Medi-Cal, housing, child care, and human services often reach Black and Brown neighborhoods first and last longer. Larger reserves can reduce that whiplash and protect essential services when revenue falls. Saving must not become an excuse to ignore present needs, but responsible reserves are a racial-equity tool when they prevent sudden, unequal cuts.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 3: Extends Existing High-Income Tax Rates for Schools and Health Care – YES. Proposition 3 makes permanent the higher income-tax rates paid by the top 2% of California taxpayers instead of allowing them to expire in 2031. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the measure would maintain $5 billion to $15 billion in annual revenue. Those dollars support public schools, community colleges, budget reserves, and the General Fund that finances health and human services. Supporters stress funding stability; opponents warn that high earners may leave the state. We support a progressive tax structure because students should not lose teachers, counselors, and opportunity – and families should not lose access to care – simply because the economy turns or temporary tax rates expire.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 4: Repeals the Ban on Public Funding of Election Campaigns – YES. Proposition 4 does not create a statewide public-financing program. It lifts the current ban so state and local governments may design such programs later, subject to safeguards. Funds dedicated to education, transportation, and public safety could not be used, and participating candidates would have to demonstrate broad support and accept spending limits. Public financing can reduce the power of wealthy donors and make it more realistic for candidates from working-class communities and communities of color to run competitive campaigns. Any future program should reward small-dollar participation, enforce strong disclosure rules, and be accessible across language and disability barriers.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 5: Changes the Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers – YES. Proposition 5 removes the second question on a recall ballot – the separate contest over who replaces the recalled official – and instead uses the state’s normal vacancy process. For a governor, the lieutenant governor would serve and, depending on timing, voters could choose a successor at a later statewide election. The current system can allow a replacement to take office with a small plurality even when that candidate receives fewer votes than the official received to remain. A simpler process respects majority rule and reduces the risk that low-turnout, crowded recall contests dilute the voices of Black voters and other communities that are too often underrepresented in special elections.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 37: Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes – YES. Proposition 37 allows the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds for a new homebuying-assistance program. Eligible buyers could receive a loan covering up to 17% of a newly built home’s price while contributing at least 3% themselves. Homeowner payments, rather than the General Fund, would repay the bonds, so the measure has no direct state or local cost. This can open a door for families with steady incomes but limited inherited wealth – a barrier that disproportionately affects Black, Latino, Native, and many immigrant households. Our support comes with a clear expectation: strong fair-housing and fair-lending oversight, multilingual outreach, transparent fees and underwriting, consumer protections, and safeguards against developers capturing the benefit through higher prices.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 39: Requires Government-Issued Identification to Vote – NO. Proposition 39 would require in-person voters to show government-issued identification and mail voters to write the last four digits of a selected government ID number on the ballot envelope. It also would require citizenship verification of voter rolls and create a free state voter-ID card. Supporters say these rules would increase confidence in elections. But California already verifies identity during registration and verifies signatures on mail ballots. A free card does not erase the burdens of obtaining documents, traveling to an issuing office, correcting mismatched records, or navigating disability and language barriers. An omitted or mismatched number could put an otherwise lawful mail ballot at risk. The state estimates tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars in annual implementation costs. Our history teaches us that voting rules written without explicit racial distinctions can still impose unequal burdens: unnecessary barriers fall hardest on Black voters, low-income voters, seniors, people with disabilities, students, and voters who move frequently. Vote No.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 40: Imposes a One-Time Tax on Billionaires – NO. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on California residents with net worth above $1 billion. Real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts generally would be excluded. Ninety percent of the revenue would be reserved for public health care, with the remainder for education, food assistance, and administration. We understand the appeal of asking billionaires to contribute more toward urgent needs. But this measure offers a one-time payday while creating a real risk that wealthy taxpayers move their money – or themselves – out of state, reducing ongoing revenue and threatening jobs and services for years. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the ongoing revenue reduction could be less than $1 billion per year. Job losses, service cuts, and economic instability land hardest on Black and Brown workers and families. We cannot support a proposal whose potential long-term consequences could disproportionately harm the communities we represent. Vote No.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 41: Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes and Applies Spending-Limit Rules – YES. Proposition 41 would require a pre-election audit and recurring independent audits of programs funded by new state special taxes. Every dollar raised in the name of housing, health care, education, or human services should reach the people and programs it was promised to serve – not be lost to waste or mismanagement. That protection matters most in Black communities and other communities of color, where unmet needs are greatest and trust has too often been broken. The measure also changes how new special-tax revenue is treated under state spending-limit rules. Those rules must be implemented transparently and without undermining essential services. Regular public review gives voters and communities a stronger tool to demand results. Accountability and transparency are protections, not obstacles. Vote Yes.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 42: Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive Taxes – YES. Proposition 42 would bar new state taxes on the ownership of financial assets and other personal property and would limit retroactive taxes. It would not eliminate existing taxes on income, earnings, sales, or retirement distributions. The attached campaign-sponsored survey found that 69% of likely voters say retirement saving has become harder and 65% are not confident they can retire comfortably in California. For Black families and other communities of color – who have had fewer opportunities to accumulate and pass on wealth – protecting savings, investments, retirement security, and small-business interests from new ownership taxes provides needed certainty. Protecting job creation and Black-owned business growth is central to our economic-empowerment agenda. We believe in taxing the wealthy fairly, and we also believe in protecting the nest eggs and businesses our communities have worked generations to build. Vote Yes.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 43: Requires a Two-Thirds Vote for Local Special Taxes – NO. Beginning in 2027, Proposition 43 would require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes proposed by either local governments or citizens. Supporters call that taxpayer protection. We see a minority veto: more than one-third of voters could block funding supported by a clear majority for housing, transit, emergency response, parks, libraries, schools, health care, and other local priorities. Communities of color frequently turn to local action when state or federal systems fail to meet urgent needs. Requiring 66.67% approval would make it harder for those communities to finance their own solutions. Democracy should not allow a small minority to overrule the majority on every dedicated local investment.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)

Proposition 44: Requires Community Health Clinics to Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services – NO. Proposition 44 would require covered nonprofit safety-net clinics to spend at least 90% of annual revenue on health-care services. Accountability is important, and patients deserve to know that resources reach care. But the state’s analysis reports that affected clinics currently spend an average of about 80%, with variation among clinics, and warns that clinics unable to meet the new rule might close. The measure also would impose penalties and charge clinics for state enforcement costs. Administration at a community clinic includes interpreters, billing, cybersecurity, compliance, outreach, and the infrastructure that keeps doors open. A rigid statewide formula could weaken the very clinics serving low-income patients, immigrants, rural residents, and communities of color. We will not gamble with the safety net.

Source (https://cahinaacp.org/our-vote-our-voice-where-we-stand-on-every-2026-ballot-measure)