Need help deciding on the state ballot measures? Here are my recommendations
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
SACRAMENTO — You haven’t voted yet because the state propositions are too bewildering? I’m with you. There are too many for normal human consumption. But I’ve figured them all out at last.
I’ve concocted my own personal voter information guide that I’ll share here. Heads up: I’m negative on most measures, including some expected to pass.
Anyway, here’s my thinking:
Proposition 1: Affordable housing bond
The state would borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing programs, mainly to provide below-market rentals for poor people. Students and farmworkers also would benefit minimally. So would military veterans through the CalVet program. The proposal is packed with goodies aimed at drawing broad political support. Which it has.
But it’s an expensive item — costing the state at least $500 million annually for 25 years. Taxpayers already are paying about $6 billion annually to retire $80 billion in bond debt.
This measure is too costly given our fragile, chaotic state budget. There should have been more prioritizing. I’m a “no” vote.
Proposition 2: Doubles the state’s ‘rainy day’ fund
It requires the Legislature to pour money into the state savings account until it reaches 20% of general fund tax revenue, rather than the current 10%. The fund can be tapped when the economy sours and revenue falls.
Sure, save away if you can. Yes.
Proposition 3: Makes high tax rates permanent
This would cement the nation’s highest state income tax rates into the California Constitution — up to 12.3%, affecting the top 2% of earners with incomes above $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for married couples. (Million-dollar earners pay an added 1%.) The money helps fund schools, healthcare and other state programs.
The high rates were sold to voters as temporary in 2012. Later, voters extended them until 2031.
My hesitancy: Tax rates should not be embedded in the constitution where they can only be altered by voters. The governor and legislators should do their jobs and update our volatile state tax system. Moreover, “temporary” shouldn’t be translated into “permanent.” And there’s no rush. The rates don’t expire for five years. No.
Proposition 4: Repeals ban on public financing of election campaigns
This would allow the state and local governments to create partial public financing systems for political candidates. “Charter” cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco already can.
Look, either wealthy donors and special interests buy the politicians or the public does. Anyway, if a few major cities are permitted to enact public financing, all cities should be. Yes.
Proposition 5: Changes recall elections
Currently, voters decide two questions in a state recall election: 1. Should the official be recalled? 2. Who should be the replacement? Under this proposal, only the first question would be asked. Any replacement would be determined by the normal non-recall process. Depending on the office, that usually ends up in a special election.
This makes lots of sense. Too many shabby games have been played with the present bifurcated system. Yes
Proposition 37: Down payment loans for home buyers
Middle-income buyers could take out a second mortgage to cover most of their 20% down payment on a newly constructed home. They’d need to dig up only 3% in cash. The program would be financed by a $25-billion state revenue bond, repaid by home buyers. Lending institutions would qualify the borrowers and take the risk, costing the state zilch.
This makes sense. Easy yes.
Proposition 38: Medical research bond
The state would borrow $8.4 billion to fund research into cures for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and other ailments. The state cost: at least $500 million annually for 20 years.
My hang-up is that the measure was crafted to assure that half the money goes to one institute, whose billionaire founder is the proposition’s chief backer. State money should be available to all potential bidders. No.
Proposition 39: Voter ID
This would force everyone to show a government ID before being allowed to vote. Those casting mail ballots would need to write a four-digit PIN on the back of the return envelope.
There’s simply no evidence of widespread voter cheating anywhere. This measure is unneeded and would just hassle voters and slow the vote count. Flat no.
California’s general election takes place on Novemer 3. Learn about L.A.’s city and county races as well races for state office.
Proposition 40: The billionaire tax
It would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires’ worth, probably raising tens of billions of dollars. Ninety percent would go to healthcare to replace federal funding cutbacks.
This is nutty. There’s no such thing as a temporary tax. Proposition 3 is an example. We shouldn’t have a one-time tax anyway. It’s like a sugar high that quickly wears off. Then what? Who’s next to have their wealth taxed? Want a wealth tax? Make it national to keep billionaires from fleeing California with their riches for more friendly states. No way.
Proposition 41 and Proposition 42: Twin poison pills
Ignore their superficial intents, the sole purpose of both measures is to invalidate the billionaires tax.
I don’t like Proposition 40, but I also detest deceptive games-playing with ballot initiatives. They should be discouraged. No.
Proposition 43: Raises vote requirement for local tax hikes
Currently, special tax increases placed on a local ballot by citizen signature-collecting require only a simple majority vote. This measure would increase the threshold to two-thirds, the same as if proposed by a city council or county supervisors board.
It’s ridiculously confusing. But I don’t like two-thirds requirements for taxes because a minority of voters can overrule the majority. That’s undemocratic. No.
Proposition 44: Community health clinic rules
The low-profile measure would require local nonprofit clinics caring for poor people to spend 90% of their funds on health services.
This smacks of a failed negotiating tactic by the union sponsor of the billionaires tax. Many clinics say they’d need to close shop. No.
Proposition 45: Regulatory streamlining for building projects
This would substantially overhaul the environmental protection act that has kept California less polluted from development projects. The act also has been sorely abused and used as a tool to stop projects, particularly housing. This measure would make it easier to build, not just housing but many things, such as water facilities, clean energy, giant warehouses and freeway expansions.
It goes too far, enabling sprawl and leaving citizens with fewer weapons to fight projects. The Legislature has been trimming home building regulations and should continue. No on 45.
Happy voting. I’m glad I didn’t vote early so there’d be time to bone up on this hodgepodge.
What else you should be reading
The must-read: “A butter knife against a nuclear arsenal”: Tech billionaires vastly outspend wealth-tax supporters
Against the wind: Hope and despair simmer among California Republicans ahead of election day
CA vs. Trump: ‘This is not normal’: Feds demand California counties set aside ‘likely’ noncitizen ballots
Until next week,
George Skelton
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
All California statewide props
How to vote
More election news
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article opposes Proposition 1, arguing that although its $11.25-billion housing bond would support important programs, the estimated $500 million to $600 million in annual repayments over 25 years would add too much debt to an already strained budget.
- It backs Proposition 2 as a prudent way to build savings for downturns, but rejects Proposition 3’s plan to make high-income tax rates permanent, contending that “temporary” taxes should not become permanent and tax policy should remain subject to legislative review.
- The article supports Propositions 4 and 5: public campaign financing should be available beyond charter cities, and recall elections should separate the decision to remove an official from the later process of choosing a replacement.
- It favors Proposition 37’s down-payment loan program, but opposes Proposition 38’s research bond because, in its view, too much funding is directed to one institute rather than made available through open competition.
- It rejects Proposition 39’s voter-ID rules as unnecessary and burdensome, Proposition 40’s one-time billionaire tax as fiscally unsound, and Propositions 41 and 42 as deceptive measures aimed at defeating Proposition 40. It also opposes Proposition 43’s higher local-tax vote threshold, Proposition 44’s clinic spending mandate, and Proposition 45’s broad changes to environmental review.
Different views on the topic
- Supporters of Proposition 1 argue that the bond would expand affordable housing and homeownership opportunities for veterans, lower- and middle-income families, and other Californians; the official voter guide cites housing and community-service organizations among its backers.[10]
- Supporters of Proposition 3 say extending the high-income tax rates would preserve funding for schools and health care. On Proposition 4, proponents argue public financing can reduce wealthy donors’ influence and help candidates without access to large private contributions; critics counter that taxpayers should not have to subsidize campaigns they do not support.[11][12]
- Proposition 5 supporters say a separate replacement election would let voters focus on whether to recall an official before deciding who should fill the vacancy. Critics argue that removing the replacement choice from the recall ballot weakens voters’ immediate say and may protect incumbents.[11]
- Proposition 37 supporters describe its down-payment assistance as a way to make homeownership more attainable for middle-income and first-time buyers, encourage new home construction, and do so without direct taxpayer costs. No argument against the measure was submitted for the official voter guide.[13]
- Proposition 38 supporters say the bond would fund research into diseases including cancer and Alzheimer’s, with accountability provisions and potential public-health benefits. Critics argue it would add decades of debt, limit the state’s flexibility to fund other health priorities, and should be replaced by research funding through the regular budget process.
- Backers of Proposition 39 argue that voter ID requirements would strengthen election security and public confidence. Opponents, including voting-rights organizations, say fraud is rare and the requirements could block eligible voters, expose personal information, and increase costs.[7][8]
- Supporters of Proposition 40 say the wealth tax could raise substantial funding to offset federal health-care cuts and protect hospitals, clinics, and coverage. Opponents warn that wealthy residents could leave, reducing future income-tax revenue, and raise concerns about the measure’s fiscal effects and safeguards.[1][2][3] Supporters of Propositions 41 and 42 present them as limits on tax and spending rules; critics characterize them as measures designed to prevent Proposition 40 from taking effect.[4][5]
- Supporters of Proposition 43 say it would close a loophole by applying the two-thirds threshold to citizen-initiated local special taxes as well as taxes proposed by local governments. Opponents say the higher bar could prevent taxes for local services from passing even with substantial voter support.[15]
- Proposition 44’s supporters argue that requiring clinics to spend 90% of revenue on program services would curb excessive executive compensation and direct more resources to patients. Opponents, including health-care groups, warn that the requirement could strain clinics and jeopardize access to care.[14][15]
- Proposition 45 supporters say firm deadlines for environmental review and court challenges could speed housing and infrastructure projects, reduce delays, and lower costs while retaining environmental protections. Opponents argue it would curtail public input and environmental review, and could accelerate sprawl or other harmful development.[6][9]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
It started as a ploy to scare Texas out of redrawing its congressional map and ended with California voters approving a new map of their own, one that could hat could help alter the balance of power in Washington.
William Mulholland was the water boss who made L.A. possible. His reputation gave him unchecked authority as a dam builder. In 1928, that led to one of America’s deadliest disasters--and the question of whether it was a crime.
