State of California November 2026 Ballot Title Evaluations

BALLOT LANGUAGE REVIEW

Alameda County Ballot Watchdog Committee

Ratings of State Propositions

For November 3, 2026, General Election

The 14 State Propositions scheduled for the November 3, 2026 general election, were evaluated in October 2026 by the Alameda County Ballot Watchdog Committee. The Titles of each of the Propositions, as they appear on voters’ ballots, were evaluated for the accuracy and fairness required by the California Elections Code using the criteria established by the Committee for each type of ballot measure, e.g. Bond Measure, Tax Measure and Other (non-tax measure). The collective scores represent the average score arrived at by the evaluators who are former Civil Grand Jurors (up to 15 evaluators allowed). The scoring system is comparable to the popular “Yelp” type scoring system (a score of one is worst; five is best). Like a Yelp evaluation, the ratings reflect the average of the evaluators’ educated opinions, based on the established criteria as to what should be, and should not be, included in each type of ballot proposition.

We emphasize that the Ballot Watchdog group IS NOT evaluating the merits of the propositions. The evaluation is non-partisan, neither liberal nor conservative. We are only concerned with the accuracy and impartiality of the ballot title being presented to the voters. The words as they appear on the ballot are the only thing that we know every voter sees. State law requires ballot language to be “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure and shall be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure”. Unfortunately, some proposition supporters exaggerate the benefits and gloss over the costs, as well as adding extraneous verbiage designed to favor passage of the measure. While the Attorney General’s Office does review the state proposition language, there is frequent suspicion expressed that the existing level of review is not adequate or impartial.

To counteract this potential bias, there is a need for active and consistent monitoring and evaluation of the governments or petitioner’s ballot language, aka “Ballot Titles”. This current Ballot Watchdog Committee effort implements the findings of the 2021 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Report, The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions. For additional background, also see http://www.ballotwatchdog.com

Results: The Ballot Watchdog review produced individual ballot measure scores ranged from 1.7 to 4.6. The average was 3.1. The most common matter that caused a reduction in the score was a lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed and what background or problem necessitates the passage pf the proposition. The fiscal impacts from non-tax or non-bond propositions are understandably uncertain, but the attempted explanation of such impacts seem speculative or misleading. Also common was the inclusion of extraneous verbiage designed to influence a favorable or unfavorable vote on the measure.

Proposition 1
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS.

Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

Criteria:

1. Intent of bond and amount of the bond.
2. The annual cost should be clearly stated in $ per $100,000 of assessed value of a property, or in dollars or percentages.
3. Duration of the bond and total estimated cost to repay the bond including interest.
4. Is there another similar bond already in place? If so, that bond information should be included.
5. What is the money specifically being spent on?
**** Extraneous language unrelated to the matter which could be considered as deceptive to the voter ( -1 point).

SCORE: 3.8

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the failure to provide sufficient information about whether there were any existing bonds in place. The language fails to indicate that the repayment of the bonds for this program displaces other potential beneficial expenditures, and there is no mention of possible defaults.

Proposition 2

INCREASES STATE’S RAINY-DAY FUND. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Increases California’s Rainy-Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns. Fiscal Impact: State budget reserves would be higher.

Criteria:

1-Intent of the Proposition and the duration.
2-Are there any financial effects if this Proposition passes? If so- how much?
3- If this passes, what or who will this Proposition specifically affect?
4-Does the Proposition deal with more than 1 issue? (Propositions should deal with one or closely related subjects.)
5- What is the current situation that would remain if this Proposition does not pass?
*****Extraneous language unrelated to the matter which could be considered as deceptive to the voter.(-1 point).

Score: 3.0

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the proposition was needed and what situation would remain if the Proposition doesn’t pass. The present reserve fund and percentage of proposed increase in the State’s reserve fund are not mentioned.

Proposition 3

PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS AND HEALTH CARE BY EXTENDING EXISTING TAX ON HIGH INCOMES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education. Fiscal Impact: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.

Criteria:
1-Intent and structure of the tax (i.e. a % rate or other amount of tax).
2- Amount of tax generated per year and the duration of the tax.
3- Is this a Special or General tax? (Not normally described in state taxes, but the more specific it’s described, the more credit they should receive).
4- Where is the money specifically going? (particularly if a special tax).
5-Is there an existing or similar tax already in place? If so, that tax information should be included.

****** Extraneous language unrelated to the matter (-1 point )

Score: 4.6

Comments: The score was slightly lowered from the maximum of five because it should have provided some more specific justification as to why the proposition was needed and what situation would remain if the Proposition doesn’t pass.

Proposition 4

REPEALS PROHIBITION AGAINST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.

Criteria:

Score: 4.1

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the proposition was needed and what situation would remain if the Proposition doesn’t pass. The mention of financial impacts only refers to the state. The principal fiscal impact from new public election funding may be to those local governments currently prohibited from funding elections.

Proposition 5

CHANGES RECALL ELECTION PROCESS FOR STATEWIDE OFFICERS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment. Fiscal Impact: Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.

Criteria:

Score: 4.5

Comments: The score was slightly lowered from the maximum of five because it should have provided a more specific explanation as to who or which offices might be affected.

Proposition 37

CREATES LOAN PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE-INCOME BUYERS OF QUALIFIED NEW HOMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3% down. Bonds repaid by mortgage payments, not State. Fiscal Impact: No direct state or local costs.

Criteria:

Intent of bond and amount of the bond.
2. The annual cost should be clearly stated in $ per $100,000 of assessed value of a property, or dollars or percentages.
3. Duration of the bond and total estimated cost to repay the bond including interest.
4. Is there another similar bond already in place? If so, that bond information should be included.
5. What is the money specifically being spent on?
**** Extraneous language unrelated to the matter which could be considered as deceptive to the voter ( -1 point).

Score: 2.9

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of unclear financial impacts. Mortgages are subject to default and bonds are subject to the vagaries of the bond market. No future potential costs to the state are mentioned.

Proposition 38

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.

Criteria:

Intent of bond and amount of the bond.
2. The annual cost should be clearly stated in $ per $100,000 of assessed value of a property, or dollars or percentages.
3. Duration of the bond and total estimated cost to repay the bond including interest.
4. Is there another similar bond already in place? If so, that bond information should be included.
5. What is the money specifically being spent on?
**** Extraneous language unrelated to the matter which could be considered as deceptive to the voter ( -1 point).

Score: 3.1

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of unclear financial impacts. There is no explanation as to why the particular bond fund recipients were selected or why they are the preferred recipients. The administration of the fund disbursement is unclear.

Proposition 39

PROHIBITS CITIZENS FROM VOTING UNLESS THEY PRESENT GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification. Fiscal Impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.

Criteria:

Score: 2.1

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to whether there would be financial impacts. The language is stilted and ambiguous. It doesn’t say what the measure requires, only what it prohibits or invalidates.

Proposition 40

IMPOSES ONE-TIME TAX ON CERTAIN TAXPAYERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit. Fiscal Impact: Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires.

****** Extraneous language unrelated to the matter (-1 point )

Score: 2.5

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because it should have provided some more specific justification as to why the proposition was needed and what situation would remain if the Proposition doesn’t pass. “Assets” subject to this tax should be better defined. “Exempt revenues” is also unclear.

Proposition 41

PROHIBITS NEW STATE TAXES THAT EXCLUDE REVENUES FROM STATE SPENDING LIMIT. REQUIRES AUDITS FOR NEW STATE SPECIAL TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes. Fiscal Impact: The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.

Criteria:

Score: 1.7

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because the wording should have provided more specific justification as to why the proposition was needed and what situation would remain if the Proposition doesn’t pass. We believe that most voters will not understand who will be prohibited from instituting which new taxes, because of vague reference to unexplained exemptions and spending limits.

Proposition 42

PROHIBITS NEW STATE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES AND CERTAIN RETROACTIVE STATE TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.

Criteria:

Score: 1.7

Comments: Like Proposition 41, the score was lowered from the maximum of five because the wording should have provided more specific justification as to why the proposition was needed and what situation would remain if the Proposition doesn’t pass. We believe that most voters will not understand what the new rules apply to. Also, the Proposition deals with more than one issue.

Proposition 43

LIMITS VOTERS’ ABILITY TO RAISE REVENUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027. Fiscal Impact: Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.

Criteria:

Score: 4.0

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because the language is unclear. It should say that a two-thirds vote is required to pass certain new taxes, not that a voter’s ability to pass new taxes is limited.

Proposition 44

REQUIRES COMMUNITY HEALTH CLINICS SPEND 90% OF REVENUE ON PROGRAM SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.

Criteria:

Score: 2.5

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because the wording should have provided more specific explanation as to why the hospital spending limitation was needed and what situation would remain if the Proposition doesn’t pass. It also seems unlikely that voters will know which hospitals would be subject to the limits and which would not.

Proposition 45

MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.

Criteria:

Score: 4.0

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because the wording should have provided more specific explanation as to what projects are to be affected. The language seems to assume an expected and expedited approval of what are discretionary proposals.

END