AAUW California Voter Guide 

Prop 2 raises the cap on how much money California can put into its rainy-day fund — from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax revenue — and requires the state to save more in years when capital-gains revenue runs high. It also expands what kinds of state debt the reserve can be used to pay down.

Prop 2 gives the state a stronger financial cushion during recessions and difficult periods to  protect education and health/human-services funding. This fund does not backfill federal cuts. 

Supporters:  Gov. Newsom and legislative Democrats; NAACP CA/HI Conference. LWVC 

Opponents:  Legislative Republicans

Prop 3 makes permanent the existing income tax rates (10.3%–13.3%) on California’s top roughly 2% of earners, currently scheduled to expire in 2031. It does not raise anyone’s taxes — it prevents a scheduled cut. 

About 89% of the revenue generated from these taxes funds K-12 schools and community colleges; the rest supports Medi-Cal and other health and human services (Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 3 Ballot Analysis,” 2026, lao.ca.gov). The underlying tax has generated more than $119 billion for schools and community colleges since 2012 (EdSource, “California Teachers Association campaigns for Prop. 3,” Aug. 2026, edsource.org).

Supporters:  Reform California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Association, California Democratic Party, ACLU California Action, NAACP CA/H, League of Women Voters, AAUW California

Opponents:  California Taxpayers Association

Proposition 4 Repeals California’s 1988 ban (from Prop 73) on public campaign financing and increases penalties for illegal foreign election spending.

The passage of Proposition 73 in 1988 was framed as a concern with taxpayer money being filtered to politicians via public financing of campaigns. Since 1988, changes to campaign finance law has led to large increases in campaign spending and dark money influences on local and state elections which have in-turn created additional barriers for non-wealthy candidates to enter races for local and state political office. Passage of Proposition 4 would help mitigate these barriers for entry while also creating additional penalties for foreign election spending. 

Supporters: California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action, California Nurses Association, AFSCME, California Labor Federation, American Association of University Women 

Opponents: California Taxpayers Association 

Proposition 39 will amend the California Constitution to require in-person voters to present government-issued Identification at the polls. Voters who mail in their ballots would need to include the last four digits of a unique government-issued identifying number. 

California already requires residents to provide an ID card number and Social Security number to register to vote. These are verified at the County Elections Office. Proposition 39 will create repetitive ID checks that are unnecessary and costly, slowing down voting processes, creating additional hurdles for voters, increasing the risk of rejected ballots, and bumping up election costs.

Supporters:  Reform California, an organization of Republican Assemblymember Carl de Maio; Californians for Voter ID; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn; CA Women’s Leadership Association; Bill Jones, former CA Secretary of State; California Republican Party. 

Opponents:  League of Women Voters California; ACLU of Northern and Southern California; California Donor Table; California Democratic Party; California Teachers Association; AAUW California

Proposition 40 will pass a statute and necessary constitutional amendments to impose a 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion, with revenue primarily for health care and some food assistance. Tax payments could be made in equal installments over a five-year period beginning in 2027. It would also create the 2026 Billionaire Tax Reserve Fund, where all taxes, interest, and penalties resulting from the initiative would be deposited. The tax would be retroactive and apply to taxpayers residing in the state as of January 1, 2026. 

If the initiative passes, constitutional amendments to override existing tax-related spending limits and tax structures will allow revenue to be generated from approximately 200 Californians. Funds would be used to support Medi-Cal along with other health coverage programs for low- and moderate-income individuals, including health care access, benefits, and services. Funds would also bolster public education from K-12; and food assistance programs such as CalFresh, CalFAP, CalFood, or California's Universal Meals Program for school meals. 

Supporters:  Save California Health Care and Public Education, sponsored by SEIU-UHW; U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D); U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D); California Democratic Party; Teamsters California; and UNITE HERE Local 1

Opponents:  No on Prop 40; U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R); Gov. Gavin Newsom (D); Former United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra (D); California Teachers Association; State Building and Construction Trades Council of California; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

Prop 41  would require pre-election and recurring (every four years) audits of programs funded by special taxes enacted on/after Jan. 1, 2026, and would bar new state taxes that exclude their revenue from the constitutional provision known as the Gann Limit spending cap (Gann Limit-a cap on how much tax money the state can spend in a given year). If this initiative passes it will become a California constitutional amendment. Proposition 41 would also nullify Proposition 40 if it receives more votes, even if the billionaire tax also passes.

Passage of this proposition would not only nullify passage of Prop 40, but would make it harder to pass new special taxes to fund programs by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. Said tax proposals would be assessed to determine if the program that would receive funding could instead cut spending by at least 10% annually. Not only pre-election but also recurring audits would be required of programs funded by special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. 

Supporters:   Yes on 41 - Californians for a More Transparent and Effective Government is leading the campaign in support of the initiative. Reform California, an organization of Republican Assemblymember Carl de Maio; CA Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPAs); CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; California Taxpayers Association (CalTax). Sponsored by Building a Better California (co-founded by Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt) explicitly to curb Prop 40. 

Opponents:  League of Women Voters California; California Democratic Party; US Senator Bernie Sanders (D); SEIU United Healthcare Workers West;  AAUW California

If this initiative passes it will become a California constitutional amendment that would bar new state taxes on ownership/control of certain forms of personal property (e.g., retirement accounts, financial assets, investment accounts, business interests, intellectual property) or taxes applied retroactively, for taxes enacted on/after Jan. 1, 2026. Proposition 42 would also nullify Proposition 40 if it receives more votes, even if the billionaire tax also passes. 

Proposition 42’s passage creates constitutional restrictions that go far beyond the protection of retirement accounts. Without flexibility to levy taxes as needed, especially in a crisis, there may be less tax revenue available for California in the future. Passage of this  proposition will also make it much harder to create a wealth tax in California.

Supporters:  Reform California; Building a Better California; Peace Officers Research Association of California;  State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, California Chamber of Commerce, and others. Sponsored by Building a Better California (co-founded by Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt) explicitly to curb Prop 40. 

Opponents:  California Democratic Party; League of Women Voters California; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West 

If proposition 43 passes it will become a California constitutional amendment that requires two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes proposed by citizen initiative (starting Jan. 1, 2027), instead of (50%) +1. 

Because prop 43 would increase the threshold of necessary support for local special tax increase measures, including those put on the ballot by citizen initiatives, from a simple majority to two-thirds, a small group of citizens could overturn or block local popular tax increases driven by their neighbors and needed to fund public services (e.g., parks, transit, fire, housing) while also reducing local fiscal flexibility. This proposition would also limit the ability of local jurisdictions and ballot initiatives from enacting taxes based on property value.

Supporters:  Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Reform California, taxpayer/business groups; California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California. HJTA frames it as restoring Prop 13 protections.

Opponents:  LWVC: Oppose (lets a minority block local revenue). California Budget & Policy Center notes it makes local revenue harder to raise. Opposed by California Professional Firefighters; California Federation of Teachers

Requires private nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers/safety-net clinics to spend at least 90% of total annual revenue on direct patient-care services; noncompliant clinics face penalties funneled to a state worker-training/staffing account.

Prop 44 would require nonprofit community health clinics — the safety-net clinics that serve low-income and uninsured patients — to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue directly on patient care, with financial penalties for clinics that fall short. While this might sound positive, clinics, which are already struggling under federal budget cuts, may be forced into closure, although they already currently spend about 80% of revenue on patient care. Up to 11.7 million patient visits annually could be threatened leading to reduced access for low-income patients.

Supporters:  SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (nearly alone).

Opponents:  California Primary Care Association (represents clinics), California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Teachers Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Democratic Party, San Diego Regional Chamber. LWVC: Oppose. A CPCA-commissioned analysis found that 183 (91%) of the 202 organizations in the IRS Form 990 data would not meet the 90% spending ratio, that organizations “will be asked to pay $1.7 billion in penalties in just the first year,” and that up to 11.7 million patient visits annually could be threatened.