We are running behind on this voter guide (as usual), but because this is The Year For Early Voting, we’re publishing a partial version that we’ll keep adding to over the next few days, maybe a week until it’s done. Our own news this year is that Edie has a 6-month old baby, who is quite delightfully distracting! And she’s back at work full time. Meanwhile Janet continues to lead Climate Action California, which among (many) other things is endorsing state legislative candidates up and down the state.
Statewide Propositions
This year’s batch of propositions can be grouped into four categories:
Funding programs, initiatives, and causes de-funded by Trump
Proposition 1 – YES
Proposition 3 – YES
Proposition 37 – NO
Proposition 38 – NO
Good government measures
Proposition 2 – YES
Proposition 4 – YES
Proposition 5 – YES
Measures that would, if passed, make it harder for government to serve regular people and the environment
Proposition 39 – NO
Proposition 43 – NO
Proposition 44 – NO
Proposition 45 – NO
The battles over the tax on billionaires
Proposition 40 – YES
Proposition 41 – NO
Proposition 42 – NO
NOTE: Prop 37, Prop 45, and Props 41 and 42 are all supported and largely funded by “Building a Better California,” the cabal of Silicon Valley billionaires opposing the wealth tax (Prop 40) and supporting California Forever, the proposed new high-tech city carved out of Solano County farmland that many of us are working to oppose. Taken together, all of these measures support California Environmental Quality Act exemptions for “advanced manufacturing” facilities (see SB 954, vetoed by Governor Newsom); greatly relaxed government and citizen oversight of projects that harm the environment—specifically including data centers; and more power and profits for California’s own class of oligarchs.
Now, the specifics, in ballot order:
YES on Proposition 1: Bond issue for affordable housing ($10 billion) and mortgage assistance for veterans ($1.25 billion). Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
The breakdown:
- $7.2 billion for affordable multifamily housing, including supportive housing
- $1.1 billion for homeownership assistance programs
- $500 million for housing-related infrastructure projects
- $450 million for farmworker housing
- $350 million for student housing at the University of California and California State University systems
- $200 million for tribal housing programs
- $200 million for local housing pilot programs
- $1.25 billion for the CalVet Home Loan Program
It’s way too hard to afford housing in our beautiful, expensive state! This bond would make a real difference, and the affordability crisis will only get worse without it. California has supported housing with bonds in the past, in 2018 and 2024, and that money is mostly spent.
YES on Proposition 2: Reorganize the Rainy Day Fund. Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
By increasing limits on reserves and accelerating debt repayments when our stock market-tied revenues are high, the state gains flexibility and the potential to increase the capacity of the General Fund in the future.
YES on Proposition 3: Make permanent a temporary tax on high earners, largely funding schools and healthcare. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
Since 2012, California has added a tax of up to 12% on the top 2 percent of earners in the state. It’s set to expire in 2031, and this measure makes it permanent. Annual revenues from this tax are estimated at between $5 billion and $15 billion—so without this tax many programs’ budgets would be severely reduced.
YES on Proposition 4: Public Campaign Financing. Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
Since 1988, public financing of election campaigns has been largely illegal. Passage of Prop 4 will give state and local governments the option of creating locally designed public financing programs. In jurisdictions that take this path, candidates who qualify can be much more diverse.
YES on Proposition 5: Reorganize statewide recalls. Put on the ballot by vote of the legislature
This measure would separate the question of whether to recall a statewide officer from the vote to choose a replacement. Instead of being chosen on the recall ballot, vacancies would be filled by special election or temporary appointment, depending on the office. This makes sense because frequently recall voters are the most partisan,
NO on Proposition 37: California Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by Building a Better California and allies collecting signatures
This is a “revenue bond” that will be paid back by its beneficiaries. Thus the “middle-class homeownership loan,” intended to mostly finance a down payment by covering up to 17 percent of the purchase price, is essentially a second mortgage right from the start. It would be available only to buyers of newly constructed homes who have household incomes up to 200 percent of the area median Income. It would not give preference to first-time or first-generation buyers, and wouldn’t exclude current homeowners. It would perpetuate the equity gap and historic housing discrimination against lower income households and people of color. Plus, the focus on new construction would likely drive sprawl.
Consider this measure in combination with Prop 45, which will encourage sprawl in undeveloped parts of the state. We’re looking at large developments for financially stretched “middle class” people, far from urban centers in places where land is cheapest.
NO on Proposition 38: Immunology Research Bond. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
This is an $8.4 billion general obligation bond, to be repaid from the General Fund over about 20 years. It may sound like a good idea and it’s important to fund science, but we shouldn’t do it this way. Cherry-picking certain causes and diseases, excluding other worthy topics from getting any of this money, and borrowing a massive amount of money the state has to pay back with interest to do so is a bad idea.
As Tom Steyer tells us in an email to his supporters, “The Legislature this year passed a broader and more inclusive research bond to appear on a future ballot and this represents a more prudent way to invest public resources into the best California research to deliver the most public benefit.” That is SB 895 (Wiener), signed by Governor Newsom and ready for the 2028 primary ballot.
NO on Proposition 39: Voter ID requirement. A Constitutional amendment put on the ballot by collecting signatures
The last thing we need to do is make it harder to vote in California. There is no voter fraud problem to solve, that is a red herring. Putting up barriers to voting puts everything we vote for at risk!
YES on Proposition 40: One-time tax on 200 billionaires. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
For one thing, California’s 200 billionaires got even richer thanks to Trump’s tax cuts, and why is that ok? For another, we think it’s disgusting to see people with BILLIONS of dollars spending hundreds of millions to keep theirs while normal people can’t pay for groceries. And, the vast number of ads telling us to vote NO on 40 and YES on 41 and 42 are completely dishonest. Here’s an analysis debunking the scaremongering claim that Prop 40 opens the door for the legislature to extend crippling taxes to the rest of us.
On January 1, 2027, California will lose $30 billion in federal support for healthcare, and incur new administrative costs of $9.5 billion—all thanks to the One Big Horrible Bill that benefited the oligarchs who oppose Prop 40. If this measure passes (despite the hundreds of millions they are spending to defeat it), proceeds from the 5 percent one-time tax are earmarked 90 percent for health care programs and 10 percent for education and food assistance—all filling part of the giant hole in people’s wellbeing opened up by the One Big Horrible Bill’s cuts.
The oligarchs who oppose Prop 40 (“Building a Better California”) also put both Prop 41 and Prop 42 on the ballot—and if either of those passes with more votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 is a dead letter.
So, if you vote YES on 40, you MUST VOTE NO on 41 and 42!
NO on Proposition 41: Audit new tax spending. Constitutional amendment put on the ballot with signatures paid for by the oligarchs who oppose Prop 40 (Building a Better California)
This is a bad idea masquerading as a good idea…which is actually intended to kill Prop 40. It would strengthen the Gann Act, a 1979 law intended to make it harder for local governments to raise money (after Proposition 13 passed the year before). BUT the real point of this bill is to kill off Prop 40, as it specifically overrides any special tax passed on the November ballot.
NO on Proposition 42: Prohibit taxes on personal property or assets such as retirement savings. Constitutional amendment put on the ballot with signatures paid for by the same oligarchs (Building a Better California), with the same goal of undoing Prop 40.
Those billionaires are so clever! Think up a scary scenario that has never happened, write a Constitutional amendment that forbids it, and tuck in a provision that makes Prop 40 illegal if this one passes. They must really think we’re dumb. Well, we’re on to them.
NO on Proposition 43: Limit local voters’ ability to pass local special taxes. Constitutional amendment put on the ballot by collecting signatures
This might be the most dangerous measure on your ballot this year. It would make it much harder for voters to approve funding for services like wildfire prevention, affordable housing, health care, raising teacher pay or other school funding, public safety, safe affordable drinking water, parks and open space, the list goes on and on.
It would write minority rule on these issues into the state constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority to approve local special taxes put on the ballot by signature gathering. (Special taxes put on the ballot by the legislature or local government bodies are already subject to a two-thirds threshold, which gives us enough trouble funding public goods and services as it is.) Contrary to the ubiquitous advertising, this measure has NOTHING to do with “Saving Prop 13.”
Vote NO, and make it possible—while still plenty difficult—for local governments to do their job, which is helping people.
NO on Proposition 44: Make life harder for “safety net” health clinics. A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by collecting signatures
There are about 2000 public health clinics (“federally qualified health centers”) in California, providing primary care and wellness services to our poorest residents…and generally scrambling for funding from a combination of MediCal reimbursements, grants, and donations. They’re not making anybody rich.This measure would require these clinics to spend at least 90 percent of their budgets on patient care, not administration or other overhead costs (to be determined by the Attorney General). Clinics that exceed the 10 percent limit would be fined, and many would likely close.
This is another mean-spirited measure penalizing our most vulnerable people for the sake of solving a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s opposed by a who’s who of all the major medical groups in the state.
No on Prop 45: Gutting the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A citizens’ initiative, put on the ballot by signatures paid for by the Chamber of Commerce and other business interests, including Building a Better California
CEQA is California’s bedrock environmental law, assuring local communities’ opportunities to participate in the approval process for important projects since 1970. It has been amended to exempt many types of construction and projects over the years, but Prop 45 goes farther to weaken the law than any effort in memory.
Proposition 45 amends the act in numerous ways, “streamlining” approval for projects that will harm the environment by shortening the local approval process, limiting judicial review, and curtailing public participation. Its proponents say it will accelerate housing development, but that will only be true for new ex-urban development (like Tejon Ranch at the top of the Grapevine, or California Forever west of Vacaville in Solano County). Most housing that won’t pave over open space is already exempt from CEQA. Prop 45 is actually intended to accelerate sprawl and fast-track polluting industrial facilities, including data centers. Janet feels more strongly about this than Edie, but we’re both voting no.
Regional measure
YES on Regional Transit Measure (RTM)
This measure was put on the ballot by petition in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties in order to pull local transit agencies (including BART) back from the edge of the fiscal cliff—where they have been teetering since the pandemic. It increases the sales tax in San Francisco by 1%, and the other counties by 0.5% for 14 years.
We have to do this. Not only would letting public transit go broke send a terrible message to the world, it would make our region even more unlivable, expensive, and polluted. If you think traffic is bad now, it will be much worse if this measure fails.
City of Oakland Measures
YES on Measure FF: Real Property Tax
Under Oakland’s current law, property foreclosures and “in-lieu-of-foreclosure” transfers are exempt from tax. Under this measure the exemption would remain only for transfers that create transitional or interim housing, transfers involving small owners (fewer than 20 properties nationally) and transfers to community banks under $10 billion in assets. Existing tiered rates (1% to 2.5% by transfer value under the 2018 Measure X schedule) apply to everything else.
YES On Measure EE: Charter Reform – Strong Mayor Form of Government
Championed by Mayor Barbara Lee, this measure moves Oakland to a “strong-mayor system.” The mayor becomes chief executive with authority over city departments and a veto over council ordinances (overridable by six votes). Council gains confirmation power over department heads, hearing and subpoena authority, and members must serve full time with no conflicting employment.
We’re glad that Mayor Lee wants to take charge. And, we believe this will raise the bar for both City Council candidates and candidates for Mayor in the future. Some of our previous mayors seem to have been using the office as a sort of vanity project, and Oakland deserves better!
This measure is supported by the whole gamut of interest and community groups in Oakland, which gives us confidence. From Oakland Rising, ACCE, and APEN Action on the progressive end of the spectrum to the Oakland Chamber and Empower Oakland on the other end (we often disagree with them), and in between are lots of Democratic clubs, the Democratic party, and unions.
Federal and Statewide Candidates
Most of these don’t really need an explanation, since they are decent candidates in their own right and also running against Republicans. We vote a pretty straight Democratic ticket, so we’re just adding explanations for our picks when the race is Dem-on-Dem.
Insurance Commissioner – Ben Allen
Janet thinks this is the most important race on the California ballot this year. Ben Allen is terming out after 12 years as a very effective state Senator. Janet has known him well since 2017 when he successfully carried a climate bill she thought up. He has taken on a host of really difficult environmental, climate, and consumer protection issues, including California’s best-in-the-nation single-use plastics reduction bill (SB 54). He is running for Insurance Commissioner at least partly because Pacific Palisades is wholly in his district, and he has been closely involved with homeowners who lost everything in the January 2025 fires…and have been essentially shafted by both the insurance companies and the FAIR Plan (the state-mandated insurer of last resort). Read Senator Allen’s policy proposals for the Department of Insurance.
Allen is endorsed by former Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, internationally known for holding insurers to account for their anti-climate underwriting and investments. Ben Allen will re-boot that effort. Read Climate Action California’s press release endorsing Senator Allen.
Allen’s opponent is Jane Kim, a former San Francisco Supervisor with a lot of progressive endorsements because she’s in that club. Janet says that Kim either doesn’t know what the Insurance Commissioner does, or she is flimflamming people with big ideas for insurance reform that would never make it through the legislature. To learn more about Jane Kim, read the SF Chronicle’s endorsement of Ben Allen.
US Congressional races
Congressional District 10 – Mark Desaulnier
Congressional District 12 – Lateefah Simon
Congressional District 14 – Aisha Wahab
Wahab is a fairly strong progressive who should represent the district well. Melissa Hernandez, her Democratic opponent, was a relatively conservative member of the BART Board, has much less legislative experience than Wahab, and is being vigorously promoted by AIPAC.
Statewide offices
Governor – Xavier Becerra
Lieutenant Governor – Fiona Ma
Attorney General – Rob Bonta
Secretary of State – Shirley Weber
Insurance Commissioner – Ben Allen (see above)
Controller – Malia Cohen
Treasurer – Eleni Kounalakis
State Superintendent of Public Instruction – Richard Barrera
Board of Equalization District 2 – Sally Lieber
State Senate and Assembly
Senate District 10 – Scott Sakakihara
Assembly District 14 – Buffy Wicks
Assembly District 16 – Rebecca Bauer-Kahan
Assembly District 18 – Mia Bonta
Assembly District 20 – Liz Ortega
