Southern California voters will join others across the state in deciding 14 statewide propositions Nov. 3, including measures requiring government-issued identification at the polls and imposing a one-time wealth tax on billionaires.
Proposition 39 would require identification when voting in person and the last four digits of a selected government-issued identification number on mail-ballot envelopes. Election officials would check that number against the voter’s registration record before counting the ballot.
California generally does not require voters to present identification at the polls. Officials verify mail ballots by comparing signatures with those in voter records. U.S. citizenship is already required to vote in state and federal elections.
The measure also would require state and county election officials to use government data to make their best efforts to verify registered voters’ citizenship. The state would provide free voter identification cards upon request, and the State Auditor would review compliance every two years.
Additional legislation would be needed to implement the measure, including determining which forms of identification would qualify.
Reform California, which supports the proposition, says the requirements would preserve mail voting while reducing problems caused by 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 Reform California’s website. DeMaio chairs the organization and helped write the measure.
Opponents say eligible voters could lose access to the ballot because they lack identification, have outdated records or make an error when entering an identification number. They also warn that requiring personal information on ballot envelopes could increase identity-theft risks.
“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 published at lwvc.org.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the requirements would cost state and local governments tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on how they are implemented.
As for Proposition 40, it would impose a one-time wealth tax on billionaires who were California residents Jan. 1, 2026. The tax would be due in 2027, with an option to spread payments over five years at an additional cost. Real estate and some pension and retirement assets would be excluded.
The measure would reserve 90% of the revenue for health care, with the remainder supporting education, food assistance and administration. The 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 pay the tax and projects roughly $100 billion in revenue. Supporters say the money would help offset federal funding cuts and preserve 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 statement posted at yeson40.com.
Opponents warn that the tax could drive wealthy residents and investment out of California, reducing revenue available for schools, health care and other public services. They also question how the proceeds would be allocated.
“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 a statement posted at votenoon40.org.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects temporary revenue totaling tens of billions of dollars over several years.
The remaining 12 propositions address housing, state finances, campaign financing, recalls, medical research, taxes, health care and environmental review:
- Prop. 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in bonds for affordable housing and veterans’ home loans. Programs would support rental housing, homebuyer assistance, farmworker housing and other housing needs. The Yes on Prop. 1 campaign, at yesonprop1ca.com, says the funding would build and preserve homes for vulnerable residents. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes the borrowing and its interest costs.
- Prop. 2 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 revenues surge. It also would change how reserve deposits count toward the state’s spending limit. The League of Women Voters says larger reserves would help protect public services during downturns. Reform California’s opposition page says the changes would weaken spending restrictions and reduce potential taxpayer rebates.
- Prop. 3 would make permanent the higher income-tax rates paid by approximately the wealthiest 2% of taxpayers, which otherwise would expire in 2031. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the measure would preserve $5 billion to $15 billion in annual revenue. The campaign at yesprop3ca.com says retaining current rates would protect schools and health care. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes converting a temporary tax increase into a permanent one.
- Prop. 4 would lift the prohibition on public campaign financing for the state and most local governments, allowing them to establish voluntary programs with candidate eligibility requirements and spending limits. Californians for Fair Elections, at cafairelections.org, says the measure would help candidates compete without relying on wealthy donors. The California Taxpayers Association, at caltax.org/prop4, says taxpayers should not finance political campaigns and warns of potentially significant costs.
- Prop. 5 would remove the replacement-candidate question from recall ballots for governors, state legislators and other elected state officers. Vacancies would be filled through succession, appointment or a later election, depending on the office and timing. The campaign at fixtherecall.com says the change would prevent candidates from taking office with only a small share of the vote. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association says it would deny voters an immediate choice of successor and allow recalled officials to run in subsequent replacement elections.
- Prop. 37 would authorize up to $25 billion in revenue bonds for second mortgages covering as much as 17% of a qualifying home’s purchase price. Buyers would contribute at least 3%, and their loan payments would repay the bonds. Eligible properties would include newly built homes and newly converted residential units. The campaign at voteyeson37.com says the program would expand homeownership and stimulate construction without direct taxpayer costs. The League of Women Voters opposes the measure, warning that additional monthly loan payments could leave buyers struggling to keep their homes.
- Prop. 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, with about half going to a qualifying University of California-affiliated institute and half distributed through research grants. The campaign at yeson38.com says the investment could accelerate treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and other illnesses. The opposition campaign at votenoonprop38.org criticizes the concentration of funding at one institute and the long-term debt. State repayment costs are estimated at $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years, potentially offset by revenue from research discoveries.
- Prop. 41 would require audits of programs supported by proposed special-tax initiatives before they reach the ballot, followed by audits every four years for programs receiving revenue from newly approved or increased special taxes. It also would restrict exemptions from the state’s spending limit. The campaign at yesonprop41.org says independent reviews would identify waste and improve accountability. The League of Women Voters says the restrictions could prevent revenue approved by voters from being spent on its intended public services.
- Prop. 42 would prohibit new state taxes on the ownership of financial assets and other personal property, including retirement holdings and savings, and restrict certain retroactive taxes. The campaign at yesonprop42.org says it would protect savings from additional taxation. The League of Women Voters says the constitutional restrictions would limit future voters’ and lawmakers’ ability to respond to changing public needs.
- Prop. 43 would require two-thirds approval for new, increased or extended local special taxes proposed by citizen initiative beginning Jan. 1, 2027. Such measures currently can pass with a simple majority. Supporters at yesonprop43.com say it would restore taxpayer protections and require broader agreement before taxes rise. Opponents at noprop43ca.com say it would allow a minority of voters to block funding for emergency response, roads, schools, hospitals and other local services.
- Prop. 44 would require affected private nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of annual revenue on health care and qualifying program services. Clinics falling short would face penalties, recoverable if they comply within five years. Supporters at yesonprop44.com say the measure would curb excessive executive pay and direct more money toward patients. Opponents at noprop44.com estimate first-year financial losses of $1.7 billion and warn that penalties could force clinics to reduce services or close.
- Prop. 45 would speed up environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure projects by limiting procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act. Placed on the ballot by the California Chamber of Commerce, the measure would allow developers to designate qualifying projects as “essential,” including housing, roads, bridges, schools, broadband infrastructure and wildfire mitigation projects. Environmental reviews for those projects would be limited to 365 days, and courts would be required to rule within 270 days on related lawsuits. The campaign at yesonprop45.com says the deadlines would lower construction costs while preserving environmental and worker protections. Opponents at noprop45ca.com say the changes would weaken environmental safeguards and restrict communities’ ability to challenge projects that threaten public health and the environment.
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
