Martin's Editorial

Martin's Ballot Opinions 2026

When the Democratic Club had a printed newsletter, I wrote up opinions about measures on the statewide ballot for friends and club members. The newsletter have moved online, but the habit remains.

Propositions 1 through 5 were placed on the ballot by the legislature. Legislative measures are always numbered from 1. Measures on the ballot through petition are numbered beginning after the highest number used the previous election cycle.

Proposition 1 The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond. Measure put on the ballot by the legislature with almost unanimous support from Democrats and some support from Republicans.  It authorizes the state to issue bonds and use the money to provide affordable housing. Good cause, we need more affordable housing. Vote YES on 1.   

Proposition 2 Save for California's Future Act. The creation of a state budget is a complicated process. One part of that process involves putting funds into a “rainy day” fund to be used only when the state is facing a financial emergency. This measure increases the maximum amount that can go into the “rainy day” fund. It was put on the ballot by the legislature with almost unanimous support from Democrats and some Republican support.  Vote YES on 2.

Proposition 3 Income Tax Rates makes permanent the existing 2012 voter-approved tax rates for high-income Californians, currently set to expire in 2031. “Makes permanent” just means there is no expiration date, the rates are subject to change through a future ballot measure. California, and IRS, tax rates are far too low for high income earners. This measure is a partial fix for very high incomes. It is not ideal, but a step in the right direction. Vote YES on 3.

Proposition 4 Public Funding of Candidates would lift a ban prohibiting counties, districts, most cities and the state from providing public funds to help candidates finance their campaigns. Presently, only charter cities, can offer such programs. This measure does not provide any public funding. It merely allows the state and/or cities and counties to enact provisions for public funding of campaigns. The advisability of any public funding plan would depend on the details of the plan. There is no reason to maintain a statewide ban. Vote YES on 4. 

Proposition 5 Recall Elections Under current law when a public official is recalled, a successor is elected on the same ballot. This proposition changes the process so if the recall is successful, the office is filled as prescribed by law for filling a vacancy in that office. It is a good idea! Vote YES on 5. 

Proposition 37 Housing Funds authorizes bond sales creating a fund to provide second mortgages of up to 17% of the purchase price of qualified homes for qualified buyers Its purpose is to encourage more home construction Bonds are to be repaid with payments on the mortgages. The measure seems to be written so there is no downside. I am skeptical that it will produce significant additional housing. Small benefit and very small risk leads to YES on 37.

Proposition 38 Funding Research authorizes bonds for immunology research. Money is appropriated from the general fund to repay bonds and interest. If the research funded by these bonds leads to discoveries that generate revenue the burden on the state budget decreases. The measure is a direct response to drastic cuts in medical research funding by the Trump administration. We can hope that the lack of spending by the Federal Government is transitory and will end in 2029. This spending is prudent. Vote YES on 38. 

Proposition 39 Voter Restriction would require that voters present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail; and that elections officials annually report percentage of each county’s voters whose citizenship they have verified. This proposition is sponsored by those who believe there is widespread voting fraud. In fact, all of the available evidence indicates that voter fraud is not a significant problem. This measure is designed to discourage voting. Vote NO on 39.

Proposition 40 The Billionaire Tax would impose a one-time tax on the assets of billionaires. Sounds like a great idea; it could generate significant revenue from folks who can afford it and who have paid less than their fair share in income taxes over the past years. While that premise is admirable, this is the wrong way to go about it. Enormous accounting and enforcement problems would ensue. We need to start by fixing the income tax marginal rates – both federal and state. Currently the marginal tax rate for very high incomes is 13.3% in California and 37% for the IRS. The very rich pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Before 1964 the IRS marginal tax rate for very high earners was 91%.. The fix for increased revenue should be in changes to the income tax and the property tax not with a new, one-time, tax. Vote NO on 40.     

Proposition 41 The Anti-Prop 40 Measure would impose conditions on any new state special taxes. The measure is backed by very well-paid executives from Google, Apple, etc. The primary aim of this proposition is to nullify Proposition 40 if 40 passes. If both 40 and 41 pass lawsuits will ensue. The best way to save money and effort is for both measures to fail. Vote NO on 41.

Proposition 42 Another Anti-Prop 40 Measure would prohibit any new state tax that either (1) taxes the ownership or control of personal property (including retirement accounts, financial assets, investment accounts, business interests, and intellectual property), or (2) applies retroactively based on the taxpayer’s conduct, activities, or a status that occurred before the new tax’s effective date, with limited exceptions. It applies to taxes that are enacted or take effect on or after January 1, 2026, including taxes that appear on the same ballot as this measure. Like Proposition 41 but more overt, this is backed by the rich corporate executives in an effort to nullify Proposition 40 should 40 pass. Unfortunately, if this passes it will adversely affect other tax measures. A very bad idea. Vote NO on 42.

Proposition 43 Super Majority Local Government is a measure placed on the ballot by the state legislature. The author of the measure now recommends a “no” vote as the circumstances that led to the measure have changed significantly. With that in mind I recommend a “no” vote without further consideration. Vote NO on 43.

Proposition 44 Health Care Governance would require 90% of the organization’s spending be on direct patient care. The measure is backed by SEIU. It is intended to cut back on administrative spending. Keeping administrative costs and administrative salaries under control is an admirable objective. This is not the appropriate way to achieve that result. Health clinics have a variety of legitimate expenses other than direct patient care including public service campaigns promoting health issues, lobbying the legislature for more funds and/or health related legislation, preparing grant proposals, etc. Vote NO on 44.

Proposition 45 Land Use would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review of specified project categories (including most housing, transportation, water, health, and clean energy projects). There are examples of abuse of the CEQA that have caused extreme delays, or cancellation of projects that would have little or no effect on the quality of the environment. Changes to the law should be carefully crafted to fix the problems without destroying its effectiveness. This is not the solution. Vote NO on 45.

Summary:

1. Yes 37. Yes 42. No

2. Yes 38. Yes 43. No

3. Yes 39. No 44. No

4. Yes 40. No 45. No

5. Yes 41. No

Martin Gorfinkel