A “no” vote opposes this Measure of removing the sunset clause from the 0.5% sales tax which forces it to expire in 2040.

A “yes” vote supports this Measure to remove the sunset clause from the 0.5% sales tax and prevent it from expiring in 2040.

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which governs state and local government agencies’ review process for determining potential environmental impacts and mitigation solutions of proposed construction projects.

Miguel Miguel, director of Sierra Club C…Read More

A “yes” vote supports this initiative to make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to:

• establish deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions for projects deemed essential under the law;
• limit public agencies’ existing requirement to consider a range of project alt…

Read More

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to require nonprofit federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue on expenses that advance the health center’s mission.

Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the California Hospital Association:

“The Service Employees International Union-United H…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports this initiative to require nonprofit federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90% of their annual total revenue on expenses that advance the health center’s mission.

Brisa Barrera, a healthcare worker at a community clinic in Santa Rosa:

“We’re calling for accountability because fron…

Read More

A “no” vote opposes this amendment to require a two-thirds vote by the electorate to enact, extend, or increase local special tax initiatives and prohibit local jurisdictions and ballot initiatives from enacting ad valorem property taxes, except for voter-approved bond debt-service taxes authorized elsewhere in the state c…Read More

A “yes” vote supports this amendment to require a two-thirds vote by the electorate to enact, extend, or increase local special tax initiatives and prohibit local jurisdictions and ballot initiatives from enacting ad valorem property taxes, except for voter-approved bond debt-service taxes authorized elsewhere in the state c…Read More

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to amend the California Constitution to prohibit the enactment of:

• new taxes after January 1, 2026, on ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings, and
• retroactive taxes that result in a tax liability based on conduct, activities, or a st…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports this initiative to amend the California Constitution to prohibit the enactment of:

• new taxes after January 1, 2026, on ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings, and
• retroactive taxes that result in a tax liability based on conduct, activities, or a st…

Read More

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to require an audit for state laws or ballot initiatives levying new special taxes after January 1, 2026.

Erica Olivo Reynoso, a licensed vocational nurse at Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center and a member of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West:

“Props. 41 and 42 were put on the b…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports this initiative to:

• require pre-election audits of tax-related ballot initiatives that have collected 25% of required signatures, with audit results included in the voter information pamphlet for any measure that qualifies for the ballot;
• require state laws or ballot initiatives levying a new special tax enacted a…

Read More

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to levy a one-time 5% tax on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion, including shares of capital stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, and any legal or equitable interest, to fund state health care programs, food assistance programs, and public e…Read More

A “yes” vote supports this initiative to levy a one-time 5% tax on the accumulated wealth of taxpayers and trusts with covered assets valued over $1 billion, including shares of capital stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness, and any legal or equitable interest, to fund state health care programs, food assistance programs, and public e…Read More

A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative, leaving existing law in place, under which:

• voters are not required to present a government-issued ID when voting; and
• voters must attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury and provide identifying information when registering; election officials are not required to use government dat…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to:

• require voters to present a government-issued ID for in-person voting or provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID designated during voter registration for mail-in voting;
• require election officials to “maintain accurate voter registration lists [and]… use best efforts to ver…

Read More

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund research and development treatments using immunology and immunotherapy.

Dr. Robert Kaplan, a senior scholar at the Clinical Excellence Research Center at the Stanford School of Medicine and the former associate director of the National Institutes of H…Read More

A “yes” vote supports an initiative to:

• authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research;
• require the state to enter a partnership with an immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California and allocate half of the bond revenue to t…

Read More

A “no” vote opposes this initiative to establish a second mortgage homebuyer program.

Reform California:

“Provides taxpayer-funded subsidies to developers without reforming costly mandates that make housing so expensive. Worse, Prop 37 makes the State of California one of the biggest mortgage lenders in America overnight – and tax…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports this initiative to:

• establish a second mortgage homebuyer program for qualified homebuyers — defined as California residents of at least one year who earn at or below 200% of the area median income for a similar-sized family in the county or city where the home is located and provide a down payment of at least 3% o…

Read More

A “no” vote opposes this amendment, thereby maintaining the requirement that a simultaneous election to fill the statewide office vacancy be held at the time of the recall election.

Election Integrity Project California, Inc.:

“On the rare occasion when a recall of a sitting state Governor is qualified, it is the people’s right…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to:

eliminate the simultaneous election of a successor when a state officer is recalled, thereby leaving the office vacant until it is filled according to state law;
allow the recalled officer to run again for the same office at the special election, if one is held; and
authorize the…Read More

A “no” vote opposes repealing the ban on using public funds for election campaigns, keeping the prohibition in place with the existing exemption for charter cities.

David Kline, Vice President of Communications and Research for California Taxpayers Association:

“People when they pay taxes want to pay for schools, fire departments, l…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports repealing the ban on public financing of campaigns, enacted in 1988 and allowing the state and local governments to create programs that provide candidates with public funds under spending limits and eligibility rules.

Sean McMorris, Transparency, Ethics, and Accountability Program Manager for Common…Read More

A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to indefinitely extend the top marginal tax rates on single filers earning at least $361,000 or joint filers earning at least $721,000, thereby allowing them to expire in 2031.

Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute:

“Extending these income tax rates, i…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports amending the state constitution to indefinitely extend the top marginal tax rates (ranging from 10.3% to 12.3%) set to expire in 2031 on single filers earning at least $361,000 or joint filers earning at least $721,000, with 89% of revenue allocated to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges.

David Goldberg, pre…Read More

A “no” vote opposes this amendment to change rules governing the state’s rainy day fund, extra debt repayment, and fiscal state of emergencies.

State Asm. Joe Patterson (R-5):

“We don’t have a rainy day fund in California. All this does is create a bigger slush fund for money to be used the following years instead of returning the mon…

Read More

A “yes” vote supports this amendment to:

• increase the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) cap from 10% to 20% of estimated general fund proceeds of taxes;
• increase deposits into the BSA by counting capital gains revenue above 10% of general fund proceeds of taxes at 150% of its value in the deposit calculation; extend through the 2039-40 f…

Read More