Southern California voters will join millions across the state Tuesday in deciding on 14 statewide ballot propositions covering voting rules, taxes, housing, health care, education and environmental regulations.
Among the most closely watched measures are Proposition 39, which would establish new voter identification requirements, and Proposition 40, which would impose a one-time wealth tax on billionaires who were California residents as of Jan. 1, 2026.
Voter ID and billionaire tax proposals
Proposition 39 would require voters casting ballots in person to present identification and those voting by mail to provide the last four digits of a government-issued identification number on their ballot envelopes. Election officials would compare the number with the voter’s registration record before counting the ballot.
California generally does not require identification at polling places. Mail ballots are currently verified by comparing voters’ signatures with those on file. U.S. citizenship is already required to register to vote in state and federal elections.
The measure also would require state and county election officials to use government databases to make their best efforts to verify registered voters’ citizenship. The state would provide free voter identification cards upon request, and the State Auditor’s Office would review compliance every two years.
Additional legislation would be needed to implement the requirements, including establishing which forms of identification would qualify.
According to Reform California, which supports the measure, the proposal would preserve mail voting while reducing problems associated with mismatched signatures.
“The California Voter ID Initiative is a common-sense and bipartisan way to restore the trust and confidence all voters should have in our election system,” Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, said in a statement posted on the organization’s website. DeMaio chairs Reform California and co-wrote Prop. 39.
Opponents argue the proposition’s requirements could prevent eligible voters from casting ballots if they lack identification, have outdated records or make mistakes when entering identification numbers. They also warn that including personal information on ballot envelopes could increase the risk of identity theft.
“Prop 39 will make voting harder, riskier, and more expensive for Californians because that’s what it was designed to do,” Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said in a campaign announcement.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates implementation would cost state and local governments tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on how the requirements are carried out.
Proposition 40 would impose a one-time wealth tax on billionaires who were residents of the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The tax would be due in 2027, with an option to spread payments over five years for an additional cost.
Real estate and certain pension and retirement assets would be exempt.
The ballot measure would direct 90% of the proceeds toward health care, with the remainder allocated to education, food assistance and administrative costs. Revenue would be exempt from existing constitutional spending limits and school-funding requirements.
The Yes on 40 campaign, sponsored by SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, estimates about 200 billionaires would be subject to the tax and projects approximately $100 billion in revenue.
Supporters say the money would help offset federal funding reductions and protect insurance coverage and services at hospitals, clinics and emergency rooms.
“When federal leaders choose tax breaks for billionaires over keeping our hospitals and ERs open, working families pay the price,” Andres Gonzalez, a health care worker from Maywood, said in a campaign statement.
Opponents warn the tax could prompt wealthy residents and investors to leave California, potentially reducing revenue available for schools, health care and other public services. They also question how the money would be distributed.
“California’s children deserve a stable, sustainable health care system. The one-time tax proposed by Prop 40 doesn’t provide that stability,” Ann-Louise Kuhns, president and CEO of the California Children’s Hospital Association, said in an opposition statement.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects the measure would generate tens of billions of dollars in temporary revenue over several years.
Two measures could block the billionaire tax
Propositions 41 and 42 also could affect whether Proposition 40 takes effect.
Proposition 41 would require audits of programs funded by proposed special-tax initiatives before those measures appear on the ballot. Programs receiving revenue from newly approved or increased special taxes also would undergo audits every four years.
The measure would prohibit new state taxes that are exempt from California’s spending limit, a provision that directly conflicts with Proposition 40’s proposed exemption.
Supporters say independent audits would identify waste and improve accountability. Opponents, including the League of Women Voters, argue the restrictions could prevent voter-approved revenue from reaching its intended public services.
Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned financial assets and other personal savings. It also would restrict certain retroactive taxes.
Supporters say the measure would protect personal savings from additional taxation. Opponents such as the League of Women Voters argue the constitutional restrictions would limit the ability of future voters and lawmakers to respond to changing public needs.
Both measures contain provisions that would invalidate 40’s wealth tax if it and either competing measure pass, and Proposition 41 or 42 receives more yes votes than Proposition 40.
That means Proposition 40 could win majority support but still fail to take effect if either competing measure also passes with a higher total of affirmative votes.
Other statewide ballot measures
The remaining 10 propositions address housing, state finances, campaign financing, recalls, medical research, local taxes, health care and environmental regulations.
Proposition 1, Housing and veterans’ bonds — The measure would authorize $11.25 billion in bonds for affordable housing programs and veterans’ home loans. Funding would support rental housing, homebuyer assistance, farmworker housing and other housing needs.
Supporters say the borrowing would help build and preserve homes for vulnerable Californians. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes the measure, citing borrowing costs and interest payments.
Proposition 2, State rainy-day fund — The measure would double the state’s rainy-day fund cap from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax revenue and require larger deposits when capital gains revenue increases sharply. It also would change how reserve deposits count toward the state’s spending limit.
Supporters say larger reserves would help protect public services during economic downturns. Opponents argue the changes would weaken spending restrictions and reduce potential taxpayer rebates.
Proposition 3, Permanent income tax increase — The measure would make permanent higher income-tax rates paid by approximately the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers. The increases otherwise would expire in 2031.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the measure would preserve $5 billion to $15 billion in annual state revenue. Supporters say the money would help protect schools and health care programs. Opponents argue a temporary tax increase should not become permanent.
Proposition 4, Public campaign financing — The measure would repeal the prohibition on public financing of political campaigns for the state and most local governments.
It would allow governments to establish voluntary public financing programs with candidate eligibility requirements and spending limits.
Supporters say the proposal would help candidates compete without relying on wealthy donors. Opponents argue taxpayers should not be required to finance political campaigns and warn of potentially significant costs.
Proposition 5, Recall elections — The measure would eliminate the replacement-candidate question from recall ballots for governors, state legislators and other elected state officers.
Vacancies would instead be filled through succession, appointment or a subsequent election, depending on the office and timing.
Supporters say the change would prevent candidates from taking office with only a small share of the vote. Opponents argue voters should have an immediate opportunity to select a replacement and warn that recalled officials could run in later replacement elections.
Proposition 37, Homebuyer assistance — The measure would authorize up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to finance second mortgages covering as much as 17% of a qualifying home’s purchase price.
Buyers would be required to contribute at least 3%, and loan payments would repay the bonds. Eligible properties would include newly constructed homes and newly converted residential units.
Supporters say the program would expand homeownership and encourage construction without direct taxpayer costs. Opponents warn additional monthly payments could make it harder for buyers to keep their homes.
Proposition 38, Medical research bonds — The measure would authorize $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. About half the funding would go to a qualifying University of California-affiliated institute, with the remainder distributed through research grants.
Supporters say the investment could accelerate treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and other illnesses.
Opponents question the concentration of funding at one institute and the long-term debt burden. State repayment costs are estimated at $500 million to $600 million annually for approximately 20 years, potentially offset by revenue from research discoveries.
Proposition 43, Local special taxes — Beginning Jan. 1, 2027, the measure would require two-thirds voter approval for new, increased or extended local special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives. Such measures currently can pass with a simple majority.
Supporters say the requirement would restore taxpayer protections and ensure broader agreement before taxes increase.
Opponents argue it would allow a minority of voters to block funding for emergency services, roads, schools, hospitals and other local programs.
Proposition 44, Community health clinics — The measure would require affected private nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of annual revenue on health care and qualifying program services.
Clinics that fall short would face penalties, which could be recovered if they meet the requirements within five years.
Supporters say the measure would curb excessive executive compensation and direct more money toward patient care. Opponents estimate first-year financial losses of $1.7 billion and warn the penalties could force clinics to reduce services or close.
Proposition 45, Environmental review deadlines — The measure would accelerate environmental reviews for certain housing and infrastructure projects by limiting procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Placed on the ballot by the California Chamber of Commerce, the proposal would allow developers to designate qualifying projects as “essential.” Eligible projects could include housing, roads, bridges, schools, broadband infrastructure and wildfire mitigation efforts.
Environmental reviews would be limited to 365 days, and courts would be required to rule within 270 days on related lawsuits.
Supporters say the deadlines would reduce construction costs while maintaining environmental and worker protections. Opponents argue the changes would weaken environmental safeguards and limit communities’ ability to challenge projects that threaten public health and the environment.
