Your ballot, start to finish.
Our guide to local races and measures. Who's running, what you're deciding, who's paying for it and where to drop your ballot.
Follow the money
Every reported dollar in and out, straight from the campaigns' Form 460 filings.
See the money trail →Candidates on camera
We asked the candidates the same questions. One video per topic.
Watch the answers →Measures & propositions
Five local measures and 14 state props, in plain language. What each one does, who's for it and against it, and why.
Read the breakdowns →Where to vote
Vote centers, drop boxes and every deadline, on the county's live map.
Find a location →Candidates are listed alphabetically, not in ballot order. Designations are as filed with the City Clerk.
Five Santa Monica measures: a school parcel tax, three rent-control changes and a hotel-tax tweak for the Olympics. Tap any measure for our full breakdown.
Schools Measure ES: School parcel tax Permanent $495-a-year parcel tax to replace the $12 million the city now pays the schools. Full breakdownClose
Measure ES: A permanent parcel tax to replace the city’s school payments
Measure ES would impose a permanent $495 annual tax on most Santa Monica parcels to fund local public schools. It would replace money the city now pays the school district under an agreement that expires next year. Even though it’s a new tax, because it qualified by petition, the initiative needs only a simple majority to pass instead of two-thirds.
What it does
The tax would rise each year with inflation and has no expiration date. It is estimated to raise $12 million a year, all of it for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District or a successor Santa Monica district. A new Malibu district would receive nothing.
The money is unrestricted and could pay for any cost at the district’s discretion.
Owner-occupant seniors 65 and older, 501(c)(3) nonprofits, fully affordable housing, and tax-exempt religious organizations and schools would be exempt.
The revenue is meant to replace city payments under the Master Facilities Use Agreement, which expires June 30, 2027.
The core debate
The central question is whether ES is new school money or a shift in who pays. Its stated purpose is to replace an existing city payment, so the main effect would be to move a roughly $12 million annual cost from the city’s general fund to individual property owners.
That gives the “no new money” argument some weight, but the alternative to ES is not the status quo. The city agreement expires in 2027, and the council has ordered contingency plans in case ES fails, so a no vote leaves the district’s funding unsettled rather than unchanged.
The reserves argument cuts both ways. Reserves and past surpluses are a cushion, but they are largely one-time money. Covering a recurring $12 million gap from $84 million in reserves alone would exhaust them in about seven years.
The measure’s design also matters. A flat per-parcel rate means a condo owner and a large commercial property pay the same amount, and inflation indexing with no expiration date means voters would need a new measure to revisit it. The exemptions narrow the base further.
The Malibu objection is time-limited. The revenue goes to the current joint district, but a new Malibu district would receive none of it once the districts separate.
The case for
Supporters say permanent funding would protect schools from the city’s financial difficulties.
The case against
Critics call ES “a back-door City tax increase” that brings schools no new money. They say the school district ran a $9 million surplus last year, has averaged $14 million annual surpluses, and holds $84 million in reserves. They also object that Malibu schools would benefit without Malibu property owners paying.
Rent control Measure GG: Rent control charter updates Rent Board housekeeping, plus two new grounds to evict over-income tenants from affordable units. Full breakdownClose
Measure GG: Mostly housekeeping for rent control, with one contested eviction change
Measure GG would make a series of administrative changes to how the Rent Control Board operates, the most controversial being a new requirement that tenants in affordable housing prove they qualify for those reduced-cost units.
What it does
- GG would let Rent Control Board commissioners serve three four-year terms instead of two, with appointed terms counting toward the limit.
- Starting in 2028, the $288-per-unit cap on annual registration fees would rise with inflation, by no more than 5% a year. The board, which now charges $240 per unit, would not have to charge the maximum. The board could also extend its 120-day deadline for deciding rent-adjustment petitions “for good cause.”
- The contested section adds two grounds for evicting tenants from units that are deed restricted based on income: when a tenant no longer qualifies, or when a tenant refuses to provide proof of income after written notice. Landlords would have to serve a warning first and comply with “all applicable regulations and guidelines.”
- GG also declares that the city’s eviction laws are more protective than the state Tenant Protection Act, keeping local rules in force.
The core debate
GG’s practical stakes rest almost entirely on its two deed-restriction eviction grounds, and their impact turns on longtime “grandfathered” tenants whose incomes have risen above program limits. There are thousands of such units in the city, many of them in the Pico neighborhood.
The case that GG is narrow rests on its text. It applies only to deed-restricted units, requires a written warning before any termination notice and is conditioned on the landlord following “all applicable regulations and guidelines.”
The case that it puts tenants at risk rests on what the text leaves out. GG writes the eviction ground into the charter, which only voters can change, while protections for over-income tenants sit in city guidelines that officials can revise. Those guidelines now let a tenant stay until income passes 140% of the limit, then require an offer of another unit or a one-year notice.
Neither side’s strongest claim is settled. A current operator’s intent not to evict does not bind future owners, and existing leases protect tenants only as far as their terms and each property’s deed restriction allow. How much protection grandfathered tenants keep depends on guidelines and agreements GG does not freeze.
The rent-increase argument is weaker. The fee cap cannot rise until 2028, and then by at most 5% a year. Any actual increase requires a separate board vote, and tenants pay at most half: $10 a month at today’s $240 fee.
The case for
Supporters describe GG as a good-government measure that gives the board the stability to serve more than 27,500 controlled rental units. They say GG “does NOT make it easier for developers to evict” and only ensures deed-restricted units go to income-qualified tenants.
The case against
Critics say the council inserted language “to make it easier for DEVELOPERS to evict tenants from affordable housing.” Opponents also argue that because landlords may pass half the registration fee on to tenants, a yes vote means higher rents. At the current fee, that pass-through is $10 a month, and any increase would still require a separate board decision.
Rent control Measure RR: Small-debt eviction ban No eviction for unpaid rent when the debt is less than one month’s fair-market rent. Full breakdownClose
Measure RR: No evictions over rent debts smaller than one month’s rent
Measure RR would limit when Santa Monica landlords can evict tenants for unpaid rent.
What it does
Currently, a landlord may evict over any amount owed. Under RR, a tenant would have to owe more than one month’s federally estimated fair market rent before a landlord could seek eviction for nonpayment.
That threshold would be calculated each year by averaging federal rent estimates for similarly sized units across Santa Monica’s five ZIP codes. Right now those levels are:
- Studio: $2,708
- One bedroom: $3,034
- Two bedrooms: $3,782
- Three bedrooms: $4,796
Here’s how it would work for a tenant in a two-bedroom who:
- Owes $100: No eviction for unpaid rent. The landlord could still try to collect the $100.
- Owes $1,500: Still no eviction, because it’s below the $3,782 limit.
- Owes $6,000: The landlord could move forward with an eviction, just like today.
The net effect would be that someone paying very low rent could go well beyond a month in arrears before facing eviction. Someone in a luxury unit could be evicted in less than a month. The measure’s text does not address that gap, and no analysis of how often it would arise has been published.
The city attorney’s analysis says RR would not affect a landlord’s right to collect unpaid rent by means other than eviction. The measure would apply to rent-controlled apartments and other rentals covered by the city’s eviction protections.
The core debate
The open questions about RR are practical: how many cases it would reach, and what it would change for those it does.
Its reach appears limited. About 75% of eviction lawsuits reported to the city since 2024 were for nonpayment, with a median of about $6,000 owed. That is well above one month’s fair market rent, so most nonpayment cases would proceed as they do now.
The case for
Supporters call the threshold “reasonable, common-sense,” citing city records of eviction notices over debts as low as $73.87 and arguing that evictions often push tenants into homelessness.
The case against
No ballot argument or organized opposition was filed against RR. A regional landlord group criticized the limit in a letter to the City Council, saying it could let tenants fall too far behind to catch up.
Hotels Measure TT: Hotel tax on long corporate stays During the Olympics and other major events, corporate room blocks keep paying the hotel tax past 30 days. Full breakdownClose
Measure TT: Hotel tax on corporate room blocks during major events
Measure TT would let the city collect its hotel tax on long corporate room bookings during council-declared “Major Event Periods,” such as the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. It would not raise the tax rate.
What it does
The transient occupancy tax, or bed tax, is currently set at 15% for hotels and 17% for home-shares. The tax is now refunded once a guest stays 31 consecutive days. TT would let the council declare a Major Event Period. During one, hotels would not refund the tax on rooms booked by corporations or other legal entities, regardless of the length of stay.
The council could also temporarily set the hotel rate for corporate bookings anywhere from 0% to 15%. The home-share rate could not be reduced. Individuals booking their own rooms would see no change.
The measure also requires the same person to occupy a room for 31 days before any refund, and it authorizes rules for exemptions in “catastrophic circumstances.”
The core debate
TT’s impact is narrow by design. It applies only during periods the council declares, only to rooms booked by corporations or other entities, and only to stays that would otherwise pass the 31-day refund mark. Residents and individual travelers would not pay more.
The potential revenue increase is real but of an uncertain size, as there’s no prediction of how many corporate bookings or how many events may occur in a given year.
The measure’s main tension is between its two levers. Ending refunds for corporate blocks raises money, while the council’s power to cut the corporate rate as low as 0% exists to protect hotels’ competitiveness. If the council uses that power heavily, it could reduce or erase the gain. Voters are, in effect, approving a tool whose fiscal result depends on future council choices.
The competitive risk is plausible. Corporate planners booking large blocks can compare neighboring cities, and if Santa Monica’s effective rate is higher, some bookings could shift. The rate-cut authority is the city’s answer to that, at the cost of revenue certainty.
The same-occupant rule closes a related path, preventing a rotating set of guests from earning the refund on a single room.
TT is unrelated to Los Angeles’ Proposition TT, a June 2 measure that would have raised that city’s hotel tax to 16%.
The case for
The argument in favor says TT “does not create a new hotel tax.” Instead, it says the measure ensures large corporations booking room blocks of more than 30 days pay the same hotel tax other visitors already pay.
The case against
No ballot argument against TT was filed. Hoteliers raised concerns before the council vote that the change could put Santa Monica at a competitive disadvantage. Nearby destinations, including Beverly Hills, Marina del Rey, Long Beach and Huntington Beach, have bed-tax refund rules that mirror Santa Monica’s current ones. The council responded by adding its authority to cut the corporate rate.
Rent control Measure VV: Eviction protections for houses and condos Extends just-cause eviction rules to renters in single-family homes and condos. Full breakdownClose
Measure VV: Just-cause eviction protections for houses and condos
Measure VV would make it harder to evict tenants in homes and condos. It would also tighten owner move-in rules for units not under rent control.
What it does
- VV amends the city charter to end its exclusion of single-unit dwellings and condos. Tenants in those homes could then be evicted only for one of the listed just causes.
- For owner move-in evictions from units not under rent control, the owner or a relative would have to intend in good faith to move in within 60 days of the tenant leaving and live there at least two years, rather than one. According to the city attorney’s analysis, that matches the rules for rent-controlled units.
The core debate
The “rent control” label overstates what VV does. The measure governs when a tenant can be evicted, not how much rent can be charged, and state law already exempts single-family homes and condos from local rent caps, so owners would keep full control over pricing.
The real dispute is relocation costs. Opponents’ figures track the city’s current relocation schedule, which runs from $20,500 to $41,900 depending on unit size and household. Supporters say those payments already apply to qualifying single-family tenants. What VV changes is that an owner would need a listed just cause, such as an owner move-in, to end the tenancy at all. Whether that newly triggers payments in cases where owners now avoid them is the measure’s most important unanswered question, and the two sides’ arguments do not resolve it.
Owners would not lose the ability to reclaim their homes. Owner move-in remains a just cause, and it covers relatives as well as owners, which addresses much of the multigenerational concern. The tradeoff is a firmer commitment: moving in within 60 days and staying at least two years.
The supply argument is plausible but unmeasured. Some small owners who rent a home between their own uses could stop renting rather than accept just-cause rules, but no data in the public record estimates how many.
The case for
Supporters say “no family should be evicted from their home for arbitrary reasons.” They say VV sets no new price controls and adds no new relocation payments.
The case against
Critics say VV is a stealth expansion of rent control. They argue that owners who temporarily rent out a home would have to pay “$20,000 to over $40,000 in mandatory relocation fees” to move back in. They also say the measure would push houses and condos off the rental market and hurt families with multigenerational plans.
Plain-English breakdowns by the Daily Press. Full ballot questions, text and staff reports at the City Clerk's election page ↗.
Fourteen measures, $44.65 billion in new state borrowing and a three-way fight over a billionaire wealth tax. Tap any prop for our full breakdown. When conflicting measures both pass, the one with the most yes votes wins.
Housing · Bond Prop 1: Housing bond Borrow $11.25 billion for affordable housing and veterans’ home loans. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 1: Veterans and affordable housing bond
What it does
Proposition 1 would authorize the state to borrow $11.25 billion through general obligation bonds for housing programs.
Of that total, $10 billion would go to state housing agencies for affordable rental construction, preservation of multifamily housing, supportive housing for homeless residents and transit-oriented development. The remaining $1.25 billion would go to the CalVet Home Loan Program, run by the California Department of Veterans Affairs, which offers low-interest home and farm loans to qualifying veterans.
Fiscal impact
The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects the bond would help build, rehabilitate or preserve up to 40,000 affordable rental units. It would also provide homebuying assistance to about 40,000 low- to moderate-income families and veterans. Repayment would come from the state General Fund.
Supporters say
The bonds would expand housing for low-income seniors, veterans, working families, foster youth, domestic violence survivors and people with disabilities without raising tax rates. The money would draw matching federal housing funds and private investment and speed up projects that are ready to build.
Opponents say
The debt would add more than $11 billion in principal and interest to the state’s obligations without addressing the rules that drive up construction costs. Local permitting delays and state environmental mandates should be reformed before taxpayers take on more long-term borrowing.
Who supports it
All Home, the California Association of Veterans, the California Federation of Teachers, the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California and Self-Help for the Elderly.
Who opposes it
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, state Sen. Tony Strickland and Assemblymember David Tangipa.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $14.3 million. Top contributors included Airbnb, the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, Building a Better California and the North Coast States Regional Council of Carpenters, at $1 million each, and the Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, at $700,000. No opposition committee reported raising money.
What’s at stake
The measure reflects a long-running debate over whether California should subsidize housing construction with public borrowing or loosen land-use rules to lower building costs. Debt payments would run for decades, and the bond’s long-term effect will depend partly on local permitting speed and construction costs.
State budget Prop 2: Rainy day fund Double the state reserve cap to 20% and exempt deposits from the spending limit. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 2: Rainy day fund expansion
What it does
Proposition 2 would amend the state constitution to change the rules for California’s main reserve, the Budget Stabilization Account, often called the rainy day fund.
The measure would double the fund’s maximum balance from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax revenue. It would exempt deposits into the fund from the state spending limit, known as the Gann Limit, which voters approved in 1979. It would also expand the types of state debts and budget obligations that could be paid down using required reserve money.
Supporters say
California’s tax system produces sharp revenue swings, as the state’s shift from a $97 billion surplus to a $45 billion deficit within a single legislative session shows. A larger reserve would let lawmakers set aside money in good years to protect schools and safety-net programs during downturns.
Opponents say
The measure undermines the Gann Limit, which was designed to enforce fiscal discipline by returning excess tax revenue to taxpayers through rebates. Exempting reserve deposits lets the Legislature hold on to surplus money for future spending instead of providing tax relief.
Who supports it
Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Democratic Party and the California Federation of Labor Unions.
Who opposes it
Assembly Republican Leader Alexandra Macedo, Assemblymember David Tangipa and the California Republican Party.
Campaign money
No dedicated support or opposition committees reported contributions. The major parties have folded campaign messaging into their general operations.
What’s at stake
The measure pits budget managers who want bigger cushions against revenue drops against anti-tax advocates who favor spending caps that trigger rebates. A larger reserve could reduce the need for emergency tax increases or cuts in a downturn, but it would also make taxpayer rebates under the 1979 limit less likely and give state budget writers more long-term discretion.
Taxes Prop 3: High-income tax rates Make the top income tax rates on the highest earners permanent. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 3: Permanent high-income tax rates
What it does
Proposition 3 would make permanent California’s top income tax rates, which range from 10.3% to 12.3% and apply to the state’s highest-earning 2% of taxpayers.
Those rates cover individual filers earning more than about $371,000 a year and joint filers earning more than about $743,000. Voters first approved the surcharges as temporary in 2012 under Proposition 30 and extended them through 2030 under Proposition 55 in 2016. The revenue would continue to go to K-12 schools, community colleges, health care programs and General Fund operations.
Fiscal impact
The rates generate about $10 billion a year for the General Fund.
Supporters say
The rates are the foundation of California’s progressive tax system and ensure high earners pay their share. The number of taxpayers in the top brackets has doubled since 2012, and letting the rates lapse would open a $10 billion annual hole for schools and health care starting in 2031.
Opponents say
Voters approved the rates as temporary emergency measures during the Great Recession. Making them permanent keeps the highest tax burden in place even in surplus years and raises the risk that high earners and entrepreneurs will leave for states with no income tax.
Who supports it
Xavier Becerra, a candidate for governor; the California Democratic Party; and the California Teachers Association.
Who opposes it
The California Republican Party, the California Taxpayers Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $63.4 million, led by the California Teachers Association at $43.8 million. Other top donors were the National Education Association, $7.5 million; the California School Employees Association, $2.6 million; and the California Federation of Teachers and SEIU California, $1.5 million each. Opponents reported $55,000, with listed contributions from the Family Business Association of California and Pacific Coast Companies.
What’s at stake
A permanent extension would give schools and Medi-Cal funding certainty and avoid a revenue drop in 2031. It would also keep the state budget tied to a small group of taxpayers whose income rises and falls with capital gains and the stock market.
Elections Prop 4: Public campaign financing Let state and local governments fund political campaigns with public money. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 4: Public campaign financing
What it does
Proposition 4 would repeal a 1988 voter-approved ban, Proposition 73, on using public money for political campaigns. It would let state and local governments create public financing programs if they choose.
Candidates who take part would have to meet qualifying thresholds and agree to spending limits. Public money could not be used for legal defense fees, administrative or criminal fines, or repaying personal loans. Today only charter cities can set up such programs under home-rule powers. The measure would extend that option to general law cities, counties and the Legislature.
Supporters say
Public financing counters the influence of corporate donors and super PACs. Matching funds or grants would help candidates from working-class backgrounds, women and people of color run competitive races without relying on wealthy contributors.
Opponents say
Tax dollars should go to public safety, roads, libraries and schools, not political campaigns. Public financing exposes local budgets to risk and opens the door to abuse under a patchwork of local rules.
Who supports it
State Sen. Tom Umberg, the California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, the California Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of California.
Who opposes it
Dan Schnur, a former chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission; the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; the California Taxpayers Association; the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; and Reform California.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $235,100, all from Movement Voter PAC. No opposition committee reported contributions.
What’s at stake
The measure would not create any program on its own. Each government would decide whether to adopt public financing and how to fund and run it, so programs and costs could vary widely across the state.
Elections Prop 5: Recall reform Drop the replacement question from recall ballots; fill vacancies by succession. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 5: Recall election changes
What it does
Proposition 5 would amend the state constitution to remove the second question on recall ballots, which asks voters to pick a replacement, for statewide officers and state legislators.
Instead, vacancies would be filled through existing succession rules. If a governor were recalled, the lieutenant governor would serve the rest of the term. Other recalled statewide officers would be replaced by gubernatorial appointment. A recalled legislator’s seat would be filled through a special election called by the governor.
Supporters say
The current two-question format lets a replacement win office with limited support. In the 2021 gubernatorial recall, the leading replacement candidate received 28% of the vote and millions of voters left the second question blank. Removing that question keeps the focus on the incumbent’s performance while following established lines of succession.
Opponents say
The measure strips voters of their century-old right to immediately elect a replacement. Filling recalled seats through appointment or succession could leave key statewide offices in the hands of officials voters did not choose, sometimes for long periods.
Who supports it
California Common Cause, the California Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of California.
Who opposes it
State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, the California Republican Party and the Election Integrity Project California.
Campaign money
No dedicated support or opposition committees reported contributions. Parties and reform groups have run campaign activity through their general budgets.
What’s at stake
The change would turn recalls into a straight up-or-down vote on the officeholder and end the possibility of a replacement taking office with a small plurality. In exchange, voters would give up the ability to pick a successor directly on the recall ballot.
Housing · Bond Prop 37: Homebuyer assistance $25 billion in revenue bonds to cut down payments to 3% on newly built homes. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 37: Middle-class homebuyer assistance
What it does
Proposition 37 would create a state-backed down payment assistance program funded by $25 billion in revenue bonds.
Households earning up to 200% of area median income, adjusted for family size, would be eligible. The program would lower required down payments to 3%. Only purchases of newly built single-family and multifamily homes would qualify.
Fiscal impact
The bonds are designed to be self-liquidating, meaning debt payments would be covered by participating buyers’ mortgage payments rather than General Fund tax revenue.
Supporters say
The measure helps “missing middle” families such as teachers, health care workers, tradespeople and public employees who earn too much for low-income aid but are priced out of homeownership. Limiting help to new homes would encourage construction, add to housing supply and help families build equity.
Opponents say
The measure uses state-backed credit to subsidize developers without easing local land-use rules or construction mandates. Making the state a major mortgage lender could leave taxpayers exposed if defaults rise in a downturn.
Who supports it
Xavier Becerra, the California Association of Realtors, the California Teachers Association and the Veterans Affiliated Council.
Who opposes it
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $23.8 million. Top donors were the California Association of Realtors, $14.8 million; Building a Better California, $6 million; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, $800,000; and the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters and Northern California Carpenters Regional Council, $450,000 each. No opposition spending was reported.
What’s at stake
Using revenue bonds limits direct draws on the General Fund compared with general obligation debt. But the 200% income ceiling extends state help to higher earners, and concentrating buying power on new homes could push prices up if local building limits stay in place.
Health · Bond Prop 38: Research bond Borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 38: Immunology research bond
What it does
Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research.
Half the money would go to an immunology institute affiliated with the University of California, chosen by the California Department of Public Health under criteria in the measure. Opponents say that institute is tied to UCLA. The other half would be awarded through competitive grants to public and private nonprofit research centers studying treatments for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease.
The state would receive 10% of licensing revenue from commercialized discoveries. California residents would get a required 20% discount on resulting therapies.
Fiscal impact
The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates repayment would cost about $500 million a year for 20 years, or roughly $10 billion in total debt service, paid from the General Fund.
Supporters say
The bonds would protect biomedical research at a time of uncertain federal grant funding. Immunotherapies use the body’s immune system to fight disease, and the licensing payback and resident drug discounts would help offset borrowing costs.
Opponents say
Research money should be awarded through scientific peer review, not ballot measures. Half the money goes to a UCLA-affiliated institute connected to the campaign’s main donor, and drug development timelines make any financial return uncertain.
Who supports it
The Alzheimer’s Association, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the Michelson Center for Public Policy and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Who opposes it
Dr. Robert M. Kaplan of the Stanford University School of Medicine, Courage California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the League of Women Voters of California.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $51.2 million, including $13 million from the Michelson Center for Public Policy, $8.2 million from Gary K. Michelson and $5 million from Meyer Luskin. Opponents raised $3,724, mostly from Kaplan, with smaller amounts from California Health Policy Strategies and Laurence Lang.
What’s at stake
The measure would lock in a fixed $500 million annual payment from the General Fund. Because new therapies take years to reach the market, licensing revenue is unlikely to offset debt payments in the near term.
Elections Prop 39: Voter ID Require photo ID to vote in person and an ID number on mail ballot envelopes. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 39: Voter ID requirements
What it does
Proposition 39 would require voters to show government-issued photo identification at polling places. Mail voters would have to write the last four digits of a government-issued ID number on their ballot return envelope.
The secretary of state and county election officials would have to check voters’ citizenship status against government databases and publish annual reports on the share of voters verified.
Unlike some federal proposals, such as the SAVE Act, the measure would not require documentary proof of citizenship to register. It would not change who can vote by mail.
Supporters say
Showing ID is routine for many everyday transactions. Verification would strengthen election integrity and public confidence without burdening registered voters or limiting mail voting.
Opponents say
In-person voter impersonation is rare, and photo ID rules fall hardest on low-income residents, students, older voters and communities of color, who may lack the required documents. The measure is unnecessary and would raise costs for county registrars.
Who supports it
U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert; Assemblymember Carl DeMaio; Julie Luckey, chair of Californians for Voter ID; state Sen. Tony Strickland; and the California Republican Party.
Who opposes it
Xavier Becerra, U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, California Common Cause, the California Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of California.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $36.4 million, led by Richard Uihlein at $17 million. Other donors included Nicole Shanahan, $370,000; Reform California with Carl DeMaio’s ballot measure committee, $310,300; and Douglas Leone and Stark Industrial LLC, $250,000 each. Opponents raised $31.2 million, including $3.2 million from the California Democratic Party, $2 million from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and $1 million each from SEIU California State Council, Reed Hastings and Dignity CA SEIU Local 2015.
What’s at stake
The measure centers on the balance between ballot security and access. County registrars would need new procedures to check IDs, and the annual citizenship reports would add ongoing work for state and local election officials.
Taxes Conflicts with 41 & 42 Prop 40: Billionaire tax One-time 5% tax on wealth above $1 billion, mostly to backfill federal health care cuts. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 40: Billionaire wealth tax for health care
What it does
Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth above $1 billion of California residents, based on assets held as of Jan. 1, 2026.
The tax would apply to holdings such as stocks, investment accounts and personal property, rather than to realized income. Ninety percent of the money would replace federal health care cuts, supporting emergency rooms, public hospitals and community clinics. The other 10% would go to food assistance and public education. The measure exempts its revenue from the state spending limit.
The measure states that if Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 passes with more “yes” votes, Proposition 40 will be nullified.
Supporters say
Federal funding cuts threaten California’s health care safety net. The ultra-wealthy pay low effective tax rates compared with the growth of their assets, and a tax on fortunes over $1 billion would preserve health services for millions of residents.
Opponents say
Taxing unrealized assets is unconstitutional, produces unreliable revenue and encourages the wealthy to leave the state. Losing top taxpayers would hurt General Fund revenue, and a one-time tax does not provide lasting health care funding.
Who supports it
U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the California Democratic Party, the California Nurses Association and SEIU-UHW West.
Who opposes it
Xavier Becerra; Google co-founder Sergey Brin; Steve Hilton, a candidate for governor; Gov. Gavin Newsom; and the California Teachers Association.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $32.7 million, nearly all from SEIU-UHW at $31.7 million. Other donors included Saikat Chakrabarti, $200,900; Ross Boucher, $200,000; and Hillary Perkins, $100,000. Opponents raised $99.8 million, led by Building a Better California at $88.5 million and Golden State Promise at $10.4 million. The California Primary Care Association Advocates and the California Medical Association gave $100,000 each.
What’s at stake
The tax could raise tens of billions of dollars in a single year to offset federal health care cuts. But it faces likely constitutional challenges and difficult questions about how to value assets. Its fate also depends on how many votes Propositions 41 and 42 receive.
Taxes Conflicts with 40 Prop 41: Special tax audits Audit special-tax programs and count new special taxes toward the spending limit. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 41: Special tax audits and spending limit
What it does
Proposition 41 would require ongoing audits of all state programs funded by special taxes, which are taxes dedicated to specific purposes. It would also make all newly enacted special tax revenue subject to the state spending limit, known as the Gann Limit.
The measure was drafted as a direct counter to Proposition 40, which exempts its wealth tax revenue from the spending limit. It includes language intended to invalidate Proposition 40 if Proposition 41 receives more “yes” votes.
How the conflict works
Under Article IV, Section 10(b) of the California Constitution, when approved measures conflict, the one with the most “yes” votes prevails. If Proposition 41 outpolls Proposition 40, courts would be expected to void the wealth tax. If Proposition 40 gets more votes, its spending limit exemption would stand.
Supporters say
The measure improves transparency by requiring audits of how dedicated tax money is spent. All new tax revenue should follow voter-approved constitutional spending limits to keep state government growth in check.
Opponents say
The measure is a tactic by business interests to block the Proposition 40 wealth tax. The audits would add administrative costs to public programs and limit voters’ ability to fund emergency health care needs.
Who supports it
Sergey Brin, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers Association.
Who opposes it
The California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor Unions and SEIU-UHW West.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $58.3 million, nearly all from Building a Better California, with $21,800 from Reform California. Opponents raised $33.1 million, led by SEIU-UHW at $31.7 million, followed by Saikat Chakrabarti, $201,000; Ross Boucher, $200,000; Hillary Perkins, $100,000; and AFSCME Council 57, $25,000.
What’s at stake
Audits and spending limits would give lawmakers tighter control over earmarked money. But the audits would carry ongoing costs, and spending caps could limit the state’s ability to respond to federal funding cuts in an emergency.
Taxes Conflicts with 40 Prop 42: Asset tax ban Ban new taxes on financial assets and any retroactive taxes. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 42: Ban on asset and retroactive taxes
What it does
Proposition 42 would add constitutional and statutory bans on new state and local taxes on financial assets, including stocks, investment accounts, retirement funds and personal property. It would also bar tax laws that apply retroactively to earlier tax periods.
The measure directly conflicts with Proposition 40, which taxes financial assets and applies to holdings as of Jan. 1, 2026. If both pass, the one with more “yes” votes would control.
Supporters say
Taxing investments and personal assets amounts to double taxation that punishes saving and investing. Banning retroactive taxes gives the economy predictability and protects the state from capital flight.
Opponents say
The measure locks in permanent tax protections for the wealthy while claiming to protect middle-class savings. Average wage earners already pay income taxes, and the ban would keep the state from taxing unrealized gains.
Who supports it
Sergey Brin, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Taxpayers Association.
Who opposes it
The California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor Unions and SEIU-UHW West.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $97.8 million, nearly all from Building a Better California, with $22,500 from Reform California. Opponents raised $33.1 million, led by SEIU-UHW at $31.7 million, followed by Saikat Chakrabarti, $201,000; Ross Boucher, $200,000; Hillary Perkins, $100,000; and AFSCME Council 57, $25,000.
What’s at stake
The measure lines up the governor, taxpayer groups and business coalitions against labor unions over the limits of state taxing power. A ban would give investors and high earners protection from sudden tax changes. It would also permanently narrow the state’s revenue options, leaving it more reliant on sales and income taxes during downturns.
Taxes · Local government Prop 43: Local tax threshold Require two-thirds approval for citizen-initiated local special taxes. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 43: Two-thirds vote for citizen-led local special taxes
What it does
Proposition 43 would amend the state constitution to require two-thirds voter approval for local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen initiative. Special taxes are those dedicated to specific services or programs.
The measure would overturn the effect of the California Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, which allowed citizen-placed local special taxes to pass by simple majority. Citizen measures would again face the same two-thirds threshold as special taxes placed on the ballot by city councils, county boards and special districts.
Supporters say
Citizen initiatives have become a loophole for passing special taxes with bare majorities. Raising taxes for specific purposes should require broad community agreement, restoring protections first set by Proposition 13.
Opponents say
A two-thirds rule lets a minority of voters block tax measures most residents support. Local governments face tight budgets and federal cuts, and limiting their tax options threatens public services.
Who supports it
The California Republican Party, the California Taxpayers Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Who opposes it
The California Democratic Party, the California State Association of Counties and SEIU California.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $14.8 million, led by the California Business Roundtable at $9.8 million. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Kilroy Realty LP and Douglas Emmett Properties gave $1 million each, and 1800 Capital Inc. gave $500,000. Opponents raised $7.6 million, led by SEIU California at $1.5 million. SEIU Local 1021, SEIU Local 721 and the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters gave $500,000 each, and California Professional Firefighters gave $250,500.
What’s at stake
The measure would make local tax approval rules uniform statewide. It would also reduce cities’ and counties’ flexibility, leaving them more dependent on general taxes or state aid when revenue falls. Combined with Propositions 2 and 3, a downturn could leave local governments seeking state help just as more state money sits in reserves.
Health care Prop 44: Clinic spending Require community clinics to spend at least 90% of revenue on patient care. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 44: Community health clinic spending rules
What it does
Proposition 44 would require certain private nonprofit community clinics serving medically underserved patients to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue directly on patient care.
Qualifying spending would include medical, dental and mental health care, equipment, patient transportation and translation services. The state attorney general would define qualifying expenses and enforce the rule. Clinics falling short would pay the difference to the state but could recover the money if they come into compliance within five years. The state could grant short-term waivers in exceptional circumstances.
Supporters say
Clinics receive public subsidies and should put patient care ahead of executive pay and overhead. The 90% standard covers essential equipment, translation and transportation, and the five-year recovery period gives clinics time to adjust.
Opponents say
Clinics already follow state and federal reporting rules, and a fixed 90% requirement would squeeze spending on management, building upkeep, technology and electronic medical records. Penalties could force safety-net clinics in low-income communities to close, reducing access to care.
Who supports it
Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, or SEIU-UHW.
Who opposes it
The California Academy of Family Physicians, the California Medical Association, the California Primary Care Association, the California School Nurses Organization and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $16.9 million, all from SEIU-UHW. Opponents raised $38.3 million, led by AltaMed Health Services Corp. at $5.4 million and California Primary Care Association Advocates at $2 million. Family Health Centers of San Diego, WellSpace Health and North East Medical Services gave $1.5 million each.
What’s at stake
The measure reflects a union effort to shape spending priorities at safety-net clinics. Capping overhead at 10% would limit administrative costs but leave less room for software, facilities and support staff. Because the attorney general would decide what counts, clinics, especially smaller ones, could face uncertainty during the rollout.
Environment · Housing Prop 45: CEQA deadlines Put firm deadlines on environmental reviews and lawsuits for projects deemed essential. Full breakdownClose
Proposition 45: CEQA streamlining
What it does
Proposition 45 would change the California Environmental Quality Act, the 1970 law known as CEQA, to speed environmental review for projects deemed essential.
Eligible projects would include housing, transit, water infrastructure, health facilities, wildfire prevention, school buildings, broadband and clean energy. Agencies would have 365 days to finish environmental reviews, and courts would have 270 days to resolve CEQA lawsuits. The Delta water conveyance project, nuclear power plants and high-speed rail would be excluded.
An analysis of the measure found its definitions of energy and broadband infrastructure could allow commercial data centers to qualify for faster review unless courts read them narrowly.
Supporters say
CEQA is often used to file frivolous lawsuits that delay or block housing, clean energy and transit. The measure sets enforceable deadlines and speeds court decisions while keeping basic environmental review and local approval authority.
Opponents say
Short deadlines would limit public participation and community input and weaken oversight of air, water and industrial pollution. The measure was written by business groups to benefit utilities and developers and could exempt data centers from full review.
Who supports it
Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Council on Affordable Housing, the California Republican Party and the California Water Association.
Who opposes it
The California Democratic Party, the California Environmental Justice Alliance, California Environmental Voters, Communities for a Better Environment and the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.
Campaign money
Supporters raised $40.5 million. Top donors were Building a Better California, $10 million; the California Building Industry Association, $8.1 million; CA Business PAC, $2.8 million; BRIDGE Issues PAC/PG&E, $2.3 million; and Edison International, $2 million. Opponents raised $21.1 million, led by Clean and Healthy California at $7 million and Wendy Schmidt at $5 million, followed by the State Building and Construction Trades Council, $2 million, and the District Council of Iron Workers, $500,000.
What’s at stake
The measure pits housing advocates, business groups and utilities against environmental groups, building trades unions and environmental justice organizations. Firm deadlines would speed approvals, but they could strain understaffed local planning departments, limit public comment and lead to more errors early in the process.
Bond totals and campaign finance figures are as reported in committee filings. Under Article IV, Section 10(b) of the state constitution, when approved measures conflict, the one with the most "yes" votes prevails.
- Oct. 5Ballots arrive, drop boxes open
- Oct. 19Last day to register for a mailed ballot
- Oct. 24Select vote centers open
- Oct. 27Last safe day to mail your ballot
- Oct. 31All vote centers open
- Nov. 3Election Day · 7 a.m.–8 p.m.
Sources: City of Santa Monica City Clerk (candidates, designations, measures) and LA County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk (dates, locations). Compiled by the Santa Monica Daily Press. The Daily Press does not endorse candidates or measures. Spot an error? editor@smdp.com