California voters have passed Proposition 38, authorizing the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at curing and preventing certain chronic diseases.
The measure, which the Associated Press called on Monday evening, requires at least $4.2 billion of the funds to be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. It also authorizes the state to enter into a partnership with an unnamed immunology and immunotherapy research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health, and to allocate half of the bond revenue to it.
Opponents argued that the measure would saddle taxpayers with decades of debt and that the requirements to qualify for grants created such a narrow pool of candidates that only one research institute in California, the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, currently meets the criteria to receive half the bond revenue. Gary K. Michelson, a wealthy philanthropist who wrote the proposition, co-founded the institute. He was also the proposition’s largest supporter, pouring $45 million into the campaign, according to state data.
Remaining funds will be used for competitive research grants that focus on immunology and immunotherapy. Those grants would be awarded by a council of representatives from University of California campuses, universities and nonprofit research institutions.
Supporters celebrated the passage on Monday saying in a press release that it “comes as federal research funding cuts have disrupted clinical trials and delayed medical discoveries nationwide.”
“This victory belongs to the patients and families who have spent years fighting devastating diseases and waiting for the next medical breakthrough,” Chris Tarver, a nurse and president of the American Nurses Association\California, said in a prepared statement.
Californians will take on an increased cost of $500 million to $600 million annually to repay the bond for an anticipated 20 years, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Some or all of the cost could be offset if any funded research generates revenue. However, it’s difficult to predict how many, if any, research projects would lead to marketable treatments.
Times staff writer Hannah Fry contributed to this report.
A Culver City ballot measure that would give 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote in municipal and school board elections was trailing Thursday.
Ballots still were being counted, but Measure YV was losing, with 55% of voters in Culver City voting against it and 45% voting for it, according to early results posted by the Los Angeles County Registrar’s Office.
There were 7,875 votes against the measure and 6,487 for it as of Thursday — a margin of 1,388 votes.
Passage of Measure YV, which was championed by a group of high school students called Vote16 Culver City, would make the Westside city one of just a few municipalities nationwide, and among a handful in California, to expand voting rights to people younger than 18.
The measure proposes an amendment to the city charter that would allow youth voters to participate only in school board and city elections. They would not be able to vote in county, state or federal contests.
The teenage proponents spent weeks canvassing for the measure in Culver City, despite having no power to cast ballots for it.
This is the second time the youth-vote initiative has been on the ballot in Culver City, where a similar measure failed in 2022 by just 16 votes.
In 2024, a citizens’ initiative to lower the voting age failed to gather enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. In February, the City Council, at the request of Vote16 Culver City, voted to put the measure on the November ballot.
Supporters say that 16- and 17-year-olds who are old enough to work, drive and pay taxes are mature enough to have a say in local decisions that affect their schools, parks, public safety, transportation and other matters. In California, they already are allowed to preregister to vote so that on their 18th birthday, they become automatically eligible to cast a ballot.
“I feel really strongly that 16- and 17-year-olds are very capable to vote and make a calm, educated decision for a school board and city elections,” 16-year-old Arlo Meighan-Thiel, a leader for Vote16 Culver City, said last month. “It would be amazing for us, the people who go to school five days a week, to have a say who represents us on the school board.”
Opponents counter that 16- and 17-year-olds are too young to make reasoned electoral choices and easily could be manipulated by adults.
Ron Bassilian, who signed the opposition statement in the city’s voter guide, told The Times in a text message Thursday that the 2022 measure trailed significantly a few days after that year’s election, only to lose by a few votes in the end.
“We remain cautiously optimistic for now” that the measure will not pass, said Bassilian, president of Protect Culver City, a political action committee that has opposed local efforts to defund law enforcement and other causes.
Bassilian, a Republican, told The Times last month that progressive candidates and activists had “really been pushing their way into the high school” seeking to influence young people, and that he was concerned about high schools becoming places where political interests were fighting for access to teenagers.
Vote16 Culver City is a part of Vote16USA, a national organization that supports youth-led state and local campaigns to lower the voting age. Vote16USA is funded by the New York-based nonprofit Goodnation Foundation, according to its website.
In 2013, Takoma Park, Md., became the first city in the U.S. to lower its voting age to 16 for municipal elections. A few additional cities in Maryland, as well as cities in New Jersey and Vermont, allow people younger than 18 to cast ballots in some or all local elections.
Multiple efforts to pass a similar youth voting initiative in San Francisco have failed by a narrow margin in recent years.
In 2016, Berkeley became the first municipality in California to drop the voting age to 16 for school board elections, followed by its Alameda County neighbor Oakland in 2020. Voters in Albany, also in Alameda County, took it a step further in 2024 when they passed a measure to let 16- and 17-year-olds cast ballots in all municipal elections — though the county still is trying to figure out how to fully accommodate youth voters in citywide contests.
In those cities, 16- and 17-year-olds were able to vote for the first time in this year’s school board elections, according to the Alameda County elections office. Every eligible preregistered youth voter was set to receive a vote-by-mail ballot before the election.
A ballot measure that would funnel more money to the Los Angeles city Fire Department by raising sales taxes by a half-cent was leading in early returns Tuesday night, along with seven other ballot measures before city voters.
“I’m humbled by the support of the voters,” said Doug Coates, president of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, which spearheaded the measure. “We showed up and we did what we needed to do … Thank you to the voters.”
Partial returns also showed L.A. voters turning thumbs up on a City Charter amendment that would allow the City Council to meet just once a week, instead of the thrice-weekly meetings now required.
Measure FD would increase the city’s retail sales tax from 10.25 cents to 10.75 cents per dollar spent, with all of the extra revenue going to the Fire Department. The city still would be required to fund firefighters at its normal rate, meaning the measure would add an estimated $345 million annually to the department’s budget.
Proponents of the measure include the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, who say the department is underfunded. The tax fund is needed to lower response times across the city and increase the number of firefighters, according to the union.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a nonprofit that advocates for lower taxes, opposed the measure. The organization raised concerns that this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, costing an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.
It also was opposed by the union representing Los Angeles Police Department officers, which objected to limiting the revenue to one city department.
The measure that would allow the City Council to meet just once a week was included in Charter Amendment EE. Most City Council members supported it, with Councilmember Tim McOsker noting his time is better spent working in his district.
Councilmember Monica Rodriguez opposed the measure, arguing that having fewer public forums is a disservice to constituents, who would have less time to meaningfully engage with their representatives. She also worried fewer meetings would mean council members would rush through deliberations.
The amendment also would make smaller changes to how the city governs, including giving more power to independent inspectors to conduct audits of the L.A. Police and Fire Departments, and increase the penalties for campaign finance violations.
The number of signatures needed for a ballot referendum also would rise, and ethics commissioners would be barred from City Council or the L.A. Unified Board of Education for five years.
The six other measures were leading by wider margins.
Proposition TE was ahead in early results. Measure ULA, also known as the “mansion tax,” imposes additional taxes on L.A. property sales above $5.4 million. Proposition TE would allow Palisades fire victims who own homes in the area to avoid the tax as long as they sell the property within five years of the disaster.
Charter Amendment LA, which aims to streamline how the city delivers basic services for infrastructure in need of repair, was leading in early results. The measure would reduce the power of the city Board of Public Works and possibly lead to eliminating it.
Charter Amendment PL took a big lead in partial early returns. The measure folds in five proposals, including to consolidate the city’s planning department, to facilitate building and opening businesses in the city.
Charter Amendment PRK, which would double the minimum amount of money earmarked for the Department of Recreation and Parks, had a big early lead in early results. If it passes, the department could receive a minimum of $986 million annually by 2036, up from the current rate that would generate $493 million by that year.
A measure that would make changes to the city’s airports, harbor and Department of Water and Power had a big lead in early results. Charter Amendment PRT would require the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners to include two members who live in Van Nuys and three who live around LAX.
Charter Amendment SC, which makes small clarifying changes to language surrounding campaign finance rules for the LAUSD Board of Education, also led in early results. Those changes would affect campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.
The fate of a controversial ballot measure to impose a new tax on California billionaires, proposed as a lifeline for the needy and castigated as a threat to the state’s fragile economy, appeared headed for defeat in early election results Tuesday night.
California voters also rejected another hotly contested measure, Proposition 39, which would have required voters to show identification when they cast ballots and elections officials to verify that all registered voters were U.S. citizens.
The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires to raise an estimated $100 billion to assist millions of Californians destined to lose healthcare coverage under federal funding cuts. Two separate ballot measures, Propositions 41 and 42, were crafted to nullify the wealth tax and remained too close to call Tuesday evening.
While supporters of the billionaire tax did not concede Tuesday evening, they acknowledged facing tough odds in the race because of the avalanche of spending against them and warned that people will die if the measure fails.
“In the event that we don’t succeed with Prop. 40 tonight, if Sacramento fails to deliver a real solution to the healthcare crisis instigated by the [federal government], one that actually makes billionaires pay their fair share, then California’s healthcare workers intend to be back on the ballot in 2028 to correct the damage, and to overcome all of the lies and deception, and just completely outrageous campaigning that we’ve seen,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, which crafted the proposal.
Voters rejected the Republican-led Proposition 39 at a time of growing distrust in the integrity of the electoral process nationwide, a wariness intensified by President Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him and false assertions that droves of undocumented immigrants, notably in California, are swaying elections.
On Monday, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by Trump’s attorneys to set aside 20,000 ballots in the state that the White House argued could be cast by people who are not citizens.
The proposals were among the 14 state ballot measures that California’s 23.3 million registered voters were asked to decide Tuesday in addition to congressional, statewide and local elections.
The billionaire tax was proposed in response to legislation signed by Trump last year that could result in millions of Californians losing Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals shuttering and other healthcare services being slashed unless a new funding source is found. The proposal would retroactively apply to billionaires who lived in California as of Jan. 1, prompting some to preemptively move out of the state. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs, and the remaining funds would be spent on education programs and food assistance.
Proposition 40 divided Democratic leaders because of concerns about its impact on the state’s volatile budget that is highly dependent on the wealthy. Gov. Gavin Newsom opposed the measure, while the state Democratic party endorsed it.
The effort supporting and opposing the tax and two ballot measures designed to nullify it came close to breaking a state campaign finance record. About $425 million had been donated to the three commingled ballot measures as of Tuesday.
The vast majority of that money was provided by California billionaires, including some of the state’s most powerful tech barons, opposing the wealth tax. The campaign was centered on three interwoven ballot initiatives: Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, both of which would undercut Proposition 40 through a series of strategic changes to state tax laws and new spending restrictions.
Neither explicitly stated that it would nullify the billionaire tax if Proposition 40 passed and either of the counter measures received more votes.
Proposition 41, which trailed slightly Tuesday evening, is framed as an effort to cut wasteful government spending and require audits of new special taxes. But it also would bar new taxes that are exempt from state spending limits. Proposition 42, which was slightly ahead, is presented as protection from state lawmakers taxing everyday Californians’ retirement funds, personal savings and home equity.
In polling leading up to election day, voters appeared to differentiate between the billionaire tax proposal and Proposition 3, which was approved by voters on Tuesday. . It would make permanent a temporary tax increase on wealthy Californians that largely funds education. The tax adds 1% to 3% to the state income tax of single filers who earn more than $360,000, joint filers who make more than $721,000 and heads of household who earn more than $490,000. Voters passed the tax in 2012 and extended it in 2016, but it is set to expire in 2031.
Voters cast ballots on several other proposals about local taxes, public financing of political campaigns, a landmark environmental law, housing, the state’s recall process, state lawmakers’ ability to redirect taxpayer money to the state’s “rainy day” fund, immunology and immunotherapy funding, and restrictions on how community healthcare clinics spend money:
Several ballot measures were decided Tuesday evening:
Proposition 1, which proposed a $11.25-billion bond to boost the construction of affordable housing, was approved by voters.
Proposition 2, which would gave state lawmakers more flexibility over state spending by exempting certain tax revenue from a state spending limit, allowing them to place it into a “rainy day” fund, was approved by voters.
Proposition 37, which would create a down-payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a home, was approved by voters.
Proposition 44, which would require certain health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on patient care rather than overhead and executive compensation, failed.
Among those that remained too close to call:
Proposition 4, which would allow state and local candidates to receive public campaign financing if they demonstrated broad support and agreed to expenditure limits.
Proposition 5, a constitutional amendment that would alter the state’s recall process by limiting it to the question of whether to remove an elected official from office, and no longer including the cadre of candidates hoping to replace the politician.
Proposition 38, which would create an $8.4-billion bond to support the immunology and immunotherapy fields.
Proposition 43, which would bar local governments from imposing special taxes unless two-third of voters support the effort. Current law requires a simple majority vote.
Proposition 45, which would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to speed up certain housing, water, energy, transportation and other projects deemed essential.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna was leading challenger and former Sheriff Alex Villanueva by a wide margin in his bid for reelection Tuesday, according to early returns, in a rematch of the 2022 race between the two lawmen.
Early returns also showed L.A. County voters favoring Measure A, which would establish binding arbitration for sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other public safety employees who by law cannot go on strike.
A second county ballot measure, Measure E, was far ahead in early returns. Measure E asks voters to create an independent ethics commission that previously was approved by another measure, and address administrative missteps that invalidated funding approved by voters in 2020 to support jail alternatives.
In the sheriff’s race, Villanueva was seeking to regain the job he lost in 2022 when Luna successfully challenged him for reelection.
This contest was lower profile than the 2022 race, but the stakes are just as high, as the new Los Angeles County sheriff will face a host of challenges, from navigating relationships with federal and local agencies to boosting recruitment and retention.
Luna pitched himself to county voters as a calmly effective operator who has brought down crime while building relationships with local, state and federal leaders that suffered under his predecessor’s tenure. The incumbent highlighted his department’s successful navigation of World Cup security and the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration agents and troops to L.A. as examples of the efficacy of his approach.
Villanueva, on the other hand, has sought to depict L.A. County as more dangerous under what he describes as the overly permissive approach of Luna. The former sheriff claimed Luna has presided over a deep decline in department morale and staffing while being too soft on drug users, the homeless and petty criminals.
Representatives of the Luna and Villanueva campaigns did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday evening.
Both men guided the department through tumultuous periods for the county. Villanueva was sheriff for nearly two years at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, while Luna was in office during the Eaton and Palisades fires.
The next four years promise further challenges. The Olympic Games are less than two years away, and the sheriff’s department will be expected to play a major role keeping millions of visitors and athletes safe.
The new sheriff also will be expected to rein in the department’s budget, which has experienced ballooning overtime costs as sworn vacancies have risen markedly under both sheriffs.
Villanueva claims Luna is out of touch with deputies and that they are leaving the force en masse in response to his poor leadership skills. Villanueva said he would improve staffing by redirecting overtime spending and serving as a beacon to would-be deputies who’ve been turned off by Luna.
But Luna denies that deputies are fleeing the department and says he’s taken major steps to improve the hiring process. He has hired an outside contractor to speed up applicant background checks and provided an avenue for many new deputies to go from the academy to patrol instead of first requiring a stint in one of the county’s jails.
Among the two countywide ballot measures, Measure A was the highest profile, with unions representing county deputy sheriffs, firefighters and others spending millions of dollars in support.
Measure A would mandate binding arbitration between the county government and negotiators who represent deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety employees in the event contract talks reach an impasse.
Currently, the county supervisors can impose a final offer that employees must accept because by law, public safety personnel are not allowed to strike.
Supporters say the measure adds balance to the negotiations process and removes the unilateral authority of the county Board of Supervisors. The change is backed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees.
County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath authored the motion, which has the support of four out of the five supervisors. No formal opposition has been filed. Supervisor Holly Mitchell raised financial concerns about the measure but has not officially opposed it.
Measure E on the county ballot would fix issues with Measure J, which was approved by voters in 2020, and Measure G, which passed in 2024.
Measure J earmarked at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue to incarceration alternatives. However, some of the ballot language in Measure G unintentionally repealed Measure J — an administrative error that was discovered in June 2025. Amendment E would partly ensure the funding to incarceration alternatives remains in effect.
The amendment also would enshrine in the county charter the seven-member ethics commission and ethics compliance office that was created when Measure G passed.
The amendment has the support of Horvath and other supervisors, as well as the League of Women Voters of L.A. County, who said Measure J shouldn’t be undone by an administrative error.
We are tracking all races across Los Angeles County, in dozens of cities, communities and school districts.
Of note in this year’s elections are a neck-and-neck Los Angeles mayoral race, a rematch for the L.A. County sheriff and nearly 100 city council seats (two of which are in L.A.). Less prominent races cover water district boards, school district trustees and the judge’s bench. Angelenos were asked to vote on propositions, measures and charter amendments — many of which involve funding programs with bonds or new taxes — at both the county and city levels.
With a few exceptions, the Associated Press does not call local city and county races. The county has 30 days to submit certified results to the secretary of state.
Jump to:
Countywide
Only three races are on the ballot for all of L.A. County.
Alex Villanueva is seeking to reclaim his position leading the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. He is running against the incumbent, Robert Luna, who unseated him in 2022.
Measure A would require binding arbitration if talks between county officials and unions representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety groups reach an impasse.
A “Yes” on Measure E would do two things: enshrine previously approved Board of Supervisors ethics reforms into the county charter, and fix a problem created by a 2024 measure that invalidated a previously approved jail alternatives funding proposal.
Multiple water district board members will be decided by voters in Los Angeles. In several districts where voters could select multiple candidates, the two with the most votes win.
Los Angeles voters will head to the polls Tuesday to vote on a slew of ballot measures, including a half-cent sales tax that would beef up the city’s Fire Department — but which also would cost Angelenos more to fill up their gas tanks, buy clothes and dine out.
Another measure would allow the City Council to meet just once a week, instead of three times as required by the City Charter.
In all, there are eight ballot measures before L.A. voters that could have a significant impact on how the city government functions, and which take just a simple majority to pass.
Here’s a roundup:
Measure FD: Sales tax hike for the Fire Department
Voters will consider a half-cent increase to the city’s retail sales tax, bumping it from 10.25 cents per dollar spent to 10.75 cents per dollar spent. The tax hike is expected to raise an estimated $345 million annually and would be funneled into a separate fund specifically for the Fire Department.
The sales tax increase was spearheaded by the union representing rank-and-file firefighters, who have long complained the department is underfunded.
The city still would be required to fund the department at the same average percentage out of the general fund, ensuring extra revenue generated by the tax would add to its regular budget.
Opponents say this would be the third sales tax hike since 2024, costing an average of $86 per person and $345 for a family of four in additional sales taxes each year.
The firefighters union said the tax fund is essential to increase the number of firefighters and lower response times across the city.
Charter Amendment EE: Fewer City Council meetings
Amendment EE would allow the Council to meet once a week instead of three times, as required under the City Charter.
The Council voted 12-0 to put the measure on the ballot, with three council members absent. Council members in support of the measure said the three meetings are costly and ineffective, and noted their time is better spent working in their district.
Councilmember Monica Rodriguez opposed the measure, saying it would reduce the time available for L.A. residents to engage with their representatives in a public forum and could lead to council members rushing through deliberations on important matters.
The amendment also would approve changes to how the city governs. If passed, independent inspectors for the L.A. Police and Fire Departments would have more power to conduct audits, and it would increase the penalties for campaign finance violations. The changes also include raising the number of signatures needed for a ballot referendum and would bar ethics commissioners from running for City Council or the Los Angeles Board of Education for five years after they leave office.
Proposition TE: An exception to the ‘mansion tax’
Proposition TE would grant a one-time exemption to Palisades fire victims from paying the so-called “mansion tax” if they sell their home within five years of the disaster.
The “mansion tax,” or Measure ULA, took effect in 2023 and imposed an additional 4% transfer tax on all L.A. property sales above $5.4 million and a 5.5% tax on sales above $10.9 million. Despite its nickname, the tax also falls on more modest multifamily residences like apartment buildings that exceed the sales price benchmarks.
The proposition would exempt Pacific Palisades homeowners from paying the tax, regardless of whether they lived at the property or not. It also would refund any resident who already sold their property and paid the tax.
The proposition was spearheaded by Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the region. Supporters say fire victims have been through enough and should have more flexibility as they navigate expensive rebuilding costs.
Opponents argue the proposition is too broad and should have included only victims whose primary residence was destroyed.
Charter Amendment LA: Restructuring how the city administers public works
Amendment LA is intended to more efficiently deliver basic city services for infrastructure in need of repair, including streets in need of repaving, dangerous sidewalks and broken streetlights. It also would leverage existing resources to open up sources of revenue.
The measure would reduce the sway of the Board of Public Works or pave the way to eliminate it, while also increasing the power of the director of public works. Critics oppose the elimination of the board, saying it would weaken accountability and increase public scrutiny.
Charter Amendment PL: Streamlining the Planning Department
L.A. residents have for years complained that navigating the Planning Department to build or open businesses is complicated and confusing.
Amendment PL includes five proposals that would increase efficiency and streamline certain parts of the Planning Department, which controls land use and approves construction and renovation projects.
The changes would consolidate seven Area Planning Commissions into one, partly to lower costs and ensure that all appeals and applications are governed by the same logic. It also would give the City Council more flexibility in approving taller buildings and set deadlines to speed up rulings from the City Planning Commission.
Charter Amendment PRK: Doubling the money for recreation and parks
Amendment PRK would double the minimum amount of money set aside for the Department of Recreation and Parks by reworking the parameters of the city budget.
The department is in charge of maintaining green spaces, playing fields and senior centers in the city. The City Charter mandates the department receive .0325% of the total assessed value of taxable properties, which is about $303 million for the park system this year and would be around $493 million in 10 years.
If the measure passes, that would double, meaning the park system would get a minimum of $986 million by 2036.
Supporters say the existing city allocation isn’t enough and has led to deteriorating recreation centers, swimming pools and restrooms. Critics warn it would force city officials to cut other services to make room for this additional funding.
Charter Amendment PRT: Changes to airports, harbor and water and power departments
Charter Amendment PRT is part of a package of proposed changes to the City Charter to increase transparency, build public trust and streamline operations. It would change how airports, harbors and the Department of Water and Power are managed.
The amendment would require that two of the seven members of the Los Angeles World Airport’s board of commissioners, who oversee Van Nuys and Los Angeles International airports, live in Van Nuys and three live around LAX.
It also would require the L.A. Board of Harbor Commissioners allocate a portion of its operating income from the Port of Los Angeles to investments in waterfront public access projects. The harbor is one of the busiest in the country and generates revenue from the operators at its terminals. PRT also would broaden public insight into how lease agreements with the port affect the local workforce.
Supporters say people overseeing Van Nuys and LAX should have a firsthand understanding of living near the airports.
No ballot argument against PRT was submitted, although the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce said it opposes the measure, citing concern over the additional requirements it would impose on businesses and the potential impact on port operations.
Charter Amendment SC: Altering LAUSD’s campaign finance rules
Amendment SC wouldn’t make major changes, but would clarify rules on campaign finance for candidates running for a seat on the Board of Education, which oversees LAUSD.
Language would be simplified to clarify that the same rules apply for mayoral candidates and Board of Education candidates, except in certain instances. Some of those rules include governing campaign contribution limits, filing deadlines, public disclosures and fundraising windows.
Supporters say it won’t make any substantive changes, but instead make the rules easier to understand by deleting duplicated language. No argument was provided against the amendment.
There are about 2,000 safety-net clinics in California that deliver primary care to underserved populations. Proposition 44 would set limits on how these federally qualified health centers spend their money.
The basics
Proposition 44 asks voters to require federally funded community health centers to spend at least 90% of their total annual revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose.”
The impact
If the proposition passes, the state attorney general will be responsible for determining what services fall into that category. If spending on administrative or non-healthcare functions exceeded 10% of total revenue, a clinic would have to pay a penalty equal to the amount it overspent.
Dig deeper
Proposition 44 was backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the same union that is pushing Proposition 40, the controversial billionaire tax. The union appears to be the main supporter of the proposal and says the restrictions would prevent excessive spending on executive salaries, fundraisers and other administrative expenses.
There is a diverse array of opponents, including the California Medical Assn., the California Teachers Assn., the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the state Democratic Party and the state Chamber of Commerce. They say the proposition’s vague wording could result in vital services being excluded from the list of program expenses permitted. A study commissioned by the California Primary Care Assn. found that clinics could face up to $1.7 billion in collective penalties in the first year of the measure’s implementation.
The Trump administration has frozen, terminated or delayed billions in congressionally approved research grants since last year. Proposition 38 aims to backfill some of that loss by creating a stable source of money to fund immunology and immunotherapy research.
The basics
Proposition 38 would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research to uncover treatments that help the immune system fight diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease more efficiently.
The impact
The measure would require at least $4.2 billion of the funds to be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s. It also would authorize the state to enter a partnership with an immunology and immunotherapy research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health and allocate half of the bond revenue to it. The remaining funds would be used for competitive grants that focus solely on immunology and immunotherapy research.
Californians would take on an increased cost of $500 million to $600 million annually to repay the bond for about 20 years, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The Yes on 38 campaign says the proposition pays for itself: 10% of all proceeds from the licensing of immunotherapies must be returned to the state to offset the total cost of the bond measure, including interest.
However, it’s difficult to predict whether any research projects will lead to marketable treatments.
Dig deeper
Proposition 38 is backed by organizations including the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and the ALS Assn., as well as a majority of local chapters of Democratic organizations across the state. Supporters say the proposed funding could give those afflicted with chronic illness hope and potentially more options for treatment.
Its opponents have said the proposed criteria for awarding the grant funding would appear to create an extremely small pool of qualified recipients. Only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, would qualify under the proposed criteria, according to No on 38, the campaign against the proposition.
Robin Swanson, spokesperson for the Yes on 38 campaign, said “lots of institutions would qualify for funds under this measure.”
But she said at a virtual news conference in mid-September that it was “very likely” that the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy “will qualify for half of the funds under the current criteria.”
Ultimately, Swanson said, the decision lies with the California Department of Public Health.
Your ballot is overflowing with decisions you need to make. Some you’ve probably heard about — Karen Bass vs. Nithya Raman for L.A. mayor, Xavier Becerra vs. Steve Hilton for California governor, the controversial billionaire tax.
But there are also some more obscure races on the L.A. County ballot that are important as well. Here are seven to keep an eye out for.
Los Angeles County sheriff
This is a rematch between rivals for the job of running the Sheriff’s Department, which also oversees county jails.
Robert Luna is the sitting sheriff. The former Long Beach police chief, Luna came out of retirement to run for sheriff in 2022, arguing that incumbent Alex Villanueva had taken the department in the wrong direction. Luna points out that violent crime has fallen every year since he took office. Between 2023, his first full year in office, and 2025, homicides fell by more than 25%.
Alex Villanueva was elected sheriff in 2018 in an upset victory. His tenure was marked by controversy and scandal, and he became a fixture on Fox News, where he appeared repeatedly to vilify “woke” culture and criticize Democrats. He faults Luna, claiming the department has issues with recruitment and retention. He also says the department does not have the resources it needs.
L.A. County Charter Amendment A
This measure deals with labor negotiations for key public safety personnel in L.A. County.
Basics
Measure A is a charter amendment that would require binding arbitration between county government and negotiators representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, lifeguards and other public safety workers if contract talks reach an impasse and no compromise can be reached. It would alter the current last step, in which county supervisors can impose a final offer that these employees must accept — by law, public safety personnel cannot strike.
Impact
The initial phase of contract talks still would have union and county representatives seeking to hammer out a mutually beneficial deal, with a presumption that both sides would negotiate in good faith. But if a gap remains and an impasse ultimately is declared, the supervisors no longer would dictate the final offer. Instead, a three-member arbitration panel would be formed. The county and union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as chair. If they can’t agree on the final panelist, a state entity could provide a list of qualified arbitrators to choose from. The arbitrators would focus on key employment elements such as wages and hours and would hold hearings and receive evidence from the parties. At the end of the process, a binding result would be issued and made public.
Read more:
L.A. County Charter Amendment E
This is a highly complicated measure that involves jail financing and seeks to clean up some bureaucratic muddles.
Basics
Jails: In 2020, 57% of county voters approved Measure J. This mandated that at least 10% of locally generated, unrestricted revenue be allocated to incarceration alternatives. The problem? Voters later approved the county reform effort Measure G, which had the unintended effect of repealing Measure J. Measure E would ensure that Measure J remains in effect.
Governance: Measure G also created, among other things, a county ethics commission and an ethics compliance office. Officials determined that for true independence, the commission and the compliance office must be permanently enshrined in the county charter.
Impact
Backers say Measure E would clean up those messy governmental issues.
L.A. County Superior Court judges
Voters will decide runoffs for four open judge seats:
Maria Ghobadi and Rhonda Haymon are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 64 seat.
Justin Allen Clayton and Anna Slotky Reitano are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 65 seat.
Anthony “A.J.” Bayne and David DeJute are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 87 seat.
Donna Tryfman and David Ross are competing for the Superior Court Judge Office 131 seat.
There has been much debate about efforts in California to tax the rich. But almost all of it centers around Proposition 40, the heavily contested billionaire tax, and two countermeasures, Propositions 41 and 42.
But there is another ballot measure that also would tax California’s wealthiest citizens that is getting far less attention — and has even garnered support from some billionaires who oppose Proposition 40.
The basics
Proposition 3 would make an expiring state income tax on high earners permanent.
The impact
Tax rates for the top 2% of earners would remain as they are. Income brackets rise with inflation, but last year the top 2% of taxpayers earned at least $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for joint filers. Money generated by Proposition 3, like the current tax, would flow to education, with 89% going to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
Dig deeper
In 2012, California voters approved a temporary increase in the income tax rate for the top 2% of California earners. In 2016, voters approved another extension through 2030. Proposition 3 would make the additional levy permanent.
Backers say the measure is crucial to maintain education funding levels and predict there would be grave problems if the measure is not approved. The state could expect to lose $5 billion to $15 billion annually in tax revenue starting in 2031, according to estimates from the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Opponents say taxes are already too high and the state should focus on cutting waste.
The California Environmental Quality Act is one of the most consequential and controversial laws on the books.
CEQA, which dates to the 1970s, requires state and local agencies to consider the environmental effects of many proposed projects before approving them. If a project could cause significant environmental harm that can’t easily be avoided, it undergoes a more detailed environmental review to examine its potential effects and alternatives.
Backers say CEQA is a vital tool for environmental review and gives the community a voice in development. But critics say CEQA is too often used to slow down needed housing and has been exploited as a bureaucratic weapon.
Enter Proposition 45.
The basics
Proposition 45 would impose stricter deadlines on environmental reviews, permits and court challenges. Agencies would have to spell out application requirements up-front and could not make repeated requests for more information or project changes. The measure caps public comment periods, while current law only sets minimum lengths. It also limits what courts may consider in CEQA lawsuits.
The impact
The law clearly would change the CEQA process; whether that would be for better or worse is the subject of debate. Backers say it would make the process faster and easier. Critics say it would roll back important environmental protections.
Dig deeper
The fight over Proposition 45 comes as California struggles to build enough housing to meet demand, causing prices to skyrocket. Housing prices, polls show, are a major issue for California voters.
But the proposition also is touching on another hot-button issue: data centers. Supporters and foes are battling over whether the measure would make it easier to build more of those controversial facilities.
The Los Angeles Board of Public Works has been overseeing work on streets, sidewalks and sewers since 1905. But if voters approve Measure LA on Tuesday’s ballot, it might not be around much longer.
The charter amendment enacts a half-dozen changes, and the most divisive is a provision that would “allow for the elimination of or changes to the Board of Public Works.”
Proponents assert that passage would lead to better city services and quicker repairs of deteriorating infrastructure. They also say the five-member board wouldn’t just disappear, and disbanding it actually would require a two-thirds vote of the 15-member City Council.
Opponents say the board plays a crucial role in managing billions of dollars of infrastructure projects while maintaining public accessibility and handling matters that don’t merit council attention (such as tree removal votes). They fear that eliminating the five-member oversight panel, and putting a single person in charge, would open the door to graft, with some citing San Francisco’s former director of public works being sentenced in 2022 to seven years in federal prison for his role in a kickback and bribery scheme.
“If the Board of Public Works was eliminated and concentrated within the authority of one person, I think that gives way to more corruption than transparency,” Councilmember Monica Rodriguez said.
Storm drains and sidewalk repairs
The board generally convenes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in an ornate, high-ceilinged room on the fourth floor of City Hall.
One recent 2½-hour meeting kicked off with a lengthy celebration of Latino Heritage Month, and then the four members present moved through a series of agenda items tied to low-profile infrastructure projects, including:
A reveal of seven bids for a package of sidewalk repairs, with Acting Executive Officer TJ Knight reading aloud the name of each applicant, and the bid amount, sometimes down to the penny. They ranged from a high of $2.47 million to a low of $1.9 million
A Bureau of Engineering representative requested authority to boost the budget of a storm drain project in the Pacific Palisades in advance of El Niño storms.
A Bureau of Street Services staffer broke down a request to remove protected trees (with plans for replacement) on a project on Mulholland Drive.
Each discussion item drew questions from the commissioners. All items were unanimously approved.
Paid positions
The five board members are all full-time city employees who earn slightly less than $200,000 a year. The members, including the board president, are appointed by the mayor and together oversee more than 5,500 people who work for city bureaus and offices that handle sanitation, street lighting, engineering, graffiti removal and more. Each bureau also has its own head.
A Board of Public Works meeting at City Hall.
(Jonathan Alcorn/For The Times)
The board members aren’t commenting on Measure LA. Former members, however, say the five-member board is an effective way to manage and coordinate a wealth of projects.
Rodriguez, who served on the board from 2013-16, said that during her tenure she focused on overhauling the procurement process to allow small, women-owned and minority-owned businesses to better compete for city contracts. She also learned the inner workings of the panel that approves more than 85% of the city’s construction contracts.
Diffusing the workload, former members say, allows for regular interaction with elected officials and the private sector.
Valerie Lynne Shaw, who served on the board from 1996 to 2013, said the board plays an important role in serving as a “coordinating mechanism” for infrastructure projects, and that commissioners regularly assist in solving problems raised by the public. She echoed the benefits of a larger panel.
“Power in the hands of many better serves the city as opposed to power in the hands of one,” she stated.
One former board member, who asked not to be identified to preserve professional relationships, said the existing system yields frequent public interaction, whether it’s people speaking during meetings or via other channels.
“I regularly went to neighborhood council meetings, homeowners association meetings, town halls, county board of supervisors meetings, to the state legislature,” the former member said. “A director can do some of that, but not all of that.”
Who’s in charge?
Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky begs to differ. From her vantage point, the current system is fragmented with no clear authority.
Yaroslavsky has been frustrated in getting information on a long-running intersection repair project on La Cienega Boulevard in her Fairfax area district.
“I can’t get any information from anybody, and I’m the councilperson,” she says.
Yaroslavsky contrasts the city setup with that of Los Angeles County, which she says has a well-known leader in Director of Public Works Mark Pestrella. She believes the city system of five board members serving as a collective general manager is a vestige of another era that never would be created today.
“When you have one person in charge, you know who you can hold accountable,” she says.
Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, another Measure LA supporter, agrees that accountability and efficiency could be bolstered under a revamped system. He believes that when certain projects require the participation of multiple bureaus, there can be a silo effect that slows progress.
“For years we’ve talked about, how do we better coordinate the bureaus? There have been advances, but it’s still fundamentally been a challenge,” he says.
In June, when the full council discussed changes to the board, during a marathon meeting about what would go on Tuesday’s ballot, panel President Marqueece Harris-Dawson also indicated that the current setup can cause confusion.
He said that, when discussing a project, “I have someone from Street Lighting saying to me, ‘Well, yeah, I can fix that light, but you also have to talk to Engineering.’ And Engineering says, ‘Well, that isn’t on our list to do.’ So it just feels like it’s bounced around, and there isn’t any one person that can say, ‘Here’s how the problem gets solved.’”
At the meeting, Rodriguez countered that having a single person in charge would not necessarily change that.
“A director isn’t going to be the omnipotent one that knows everything about what’s being coordinated between the different bureaus,” she said. Instead, she added, “If we want to talk about the real problems, we’ve got to talk about the resources and staffing support of each of these bureaus.”
Hiding the poison?
According to a City Ethics Commission database, no money has been spent by groups either supporting or opposing Measure LA. But for some political observers, the measure remains multifaceted and the debate heated.
Opponents of Measure LA question why something so significant and controversial as the potential eradication of a board that has been in existence for more than 150 years is on a ballot measure with more palatable proposals, such as adopting a two-year budget cycle and establishing a capital infrastructure plan.
Some have compared it with city Measure EE, the November charter amendment that includes good-governance elements such as boosting penalties for campaign finance violations and a more consequential proposal to allow the full council to meet at least once a week, rather than the current requirement of three times a week.
The former Board of Public Works member suggested that altering the five-member panel should have been its own item, saying, “The longer the paragraphs are, the fewer words the public will read.”
Rodriguez was even more direct, saying, “I think those are all tethered together to make you swallow the poison.”
Yaroslavsky described some of the board members as “very talented,” including its president, Steve Kang, and she acknowledges that separating aspects in the measure would have allowed a more focused conversation on public works. But she believes putting everything together is part of addressing “common-sense, obvious stuff” that will help the city function better.
Blumenfield also understands the objection but points out that the ballot already is overwhelming, and that everything in Measure LA addresses a change in governance and efficiency.
He also points out that voter approval would only set the stage for a later discussion. If a future council opts to change or eliminate the board, it would require 10 votes — or 12 if the mayor vetoed such a move.
“It’s a question that is worth asking, but nobody wants to take the time to go deep on how could we be better if we can’t even have the authority?” Blumenfield said.
Liev Schreiber owned up to his intense behavior at the “Nocturne” premiere last week, apologizing for scolding a red carpet reporter.
“I didn’t do well,” the Emmy-winning “Ray Donovan” and “Spotlight” star said while recalling his side of the viral red carpet exchange for “Late Night with Seth Meyers” on Monday.
“She hit my Achilles’ heel,” Schreiber explained later in his late-night segment.
His exchange with an Apple TV reporter sparked headlines last week, with the actor berating the reporter on video for her question during his series’ Hollywood premiere. The 59-year-old star appeared to take issue with the reporter asking him to describe “Nocturne” in three words. He could be seen apparently telling the reporter to “talk to people like they value what they do.”
“Three words isn’t gonna do anything for anybody and the monkey who f— thought of that is shooting themselves in the foot,” he says in the video. “It’s not a f— sound bite, especially when we’re doing it in-house for our own people.”
He further suggested that the reporter “engage” with the individuals involved in the project, which is an Apple TV production.
During his late-night appearance, Schreiber made it quite clear he has a bone to pick with increasingly reductive language, lamenting the use of emojis to communicate thoughts. The Tony winner, directing William Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure” for the USC School of Dramatic Arts, spoke on Monday about “what a responsibility it is to articulate” and joked, “I might not be the best person on the press line that ever was on the press line.”
Schreiber said he’s now “at that age where I don’t do things terribly quickly” and fessed up to his “terrible tirade about monkeys and profanity.”
“I apologize,”he said, adding he and the reporter smoothed things over and ultimately engaged in a “great” conversation about the series.
“Nocturne” stars Schreiber, “Atlanta” alumna Zazie Beetz and Emmy winner Stephen Graham and begins streaming Friday. Adapted from Lars Kepler’s bestselling novel, the series centers on Schreiber’s ex-cop whose move to a small western Pennsylvania town spurs a string of disappearances possibly tied to a serial killer.
Voters in the Northern California city of Vallejo passed a ballot measure adopting binding arbitration with its public employee unions more than 50 years ago, following a bitter police strike.
The goal was labor peace. Under binding arbitration, an independent referee is brought in when negotiators hit an impasse. The final decision on wages, benefits and working conditions is taken out of the hands of the local elected officials and placed squarely with the arbitrator.
With Measure A on the Nov. 3 ballot, Los Angeles County voters have a chance to do much the same thing here.
The measure is being pushed by unions representing county firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and other public safety employees who by law cannot go out on strike, and who say binding arbitration adds balance to the negotiation process by taking away the unilateral authority held by the county Board of Supervisors.
No formal opposition to Measure A has been submitted. But in his summary of the potential impact this year, county chief executive Joe Nicchita shared news stories showing how binding arbitration has played out in other jurisdictions, including Vallejo.
In 2007, a mediator determined that despite fiscal travails, Vallejo couldn’t reduce the size of its fire department. Eight months later, with little budgetary wiggle room, the city declared bankruptcy.
Vallejo had been the first California municipality to adopt binding arbitration. In 2010, the voters decided to ditch it.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell voiced concerns about Measure A when the board discussed placing it on the ballot this year.
“Arbitrators aren’t elected,” she said. “They’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, like healthcare, capital improvements, all those things.”
The board voted 4-0 to place binding arbitration on the Nov. 3 ballot, with Mitchell abstaining. Supporters say there are sufficient protections to prevent the county from experiencing the financial tribulations that Vallejo and other cities suffered in part because of binding arbitration.
“This process opens up the books, allows the parties to come together and base decisions on facts rather than political preferences, and it also shows whether there are actually resources to meet the demands that are coming,” Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, an architect of the measure, said in an interview.
Horvath previously noted that just six of the 21 jurisdictions in California that have instituted binding arbitration, including two counties, have had to resort to it.
If a majority of county voters approves Charter Amendment A, it will cover 14 bargaining units representing some 16,500 county workers, among them lifeguards and deputy medical examiners. It would not apply to bargaining units whose workers can strike.
In the current system, if the sides are unable to reach an agreement, the supervisors can impose a final offer that the unions must accept. While contract negotiations are frequently contentious, historically the supervisors mandating final terms is rare; The Times previously reported that it has happened only twice since 2001.
Under the proposed measure, contract negotiations would begin as they do now, with the presumption that both sides bargain in good faith. However, if agreement proves impossible and an impasse is declared, a three-member arbitration panel would take over.
In that case, the county and the union each would select one member, with the sides together choosing the third person, who would serve as the panel’s chair. The arbitrators would hold hearings and weigh evidence related to employment elements such as wages and hours. In the end, the binding ruling would be made public.
Derek Hsieh, executive director of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said the current process began with a group of labor unions launching a signature-gathering drive to put binding arbitration before voters. That led to working with the supervisors and the county chief executive, who, Hsieh said, wanted to ensure there were certain safeguards.
Hsieh said binding arbitration would represent an important and balanced change.
“Currently, the employer has near unilateral control over what the contract provisions are,” he said.
He added that the threat of going before arbitrators would spur both county and union negotiators to reach an agreement before someone else takes over, and that it would prevent either side from pushing a “wild proposal” that arbitrators would quickly reject.
Dave Gillotte, president of the International Assn. of Firefighters Local 1014, which represents more than 3,000 L.A. County Fire Department employees, agrees that the very threat of winding up in binding arbitration would encourage negotiating teams to cut a deal.
“Binding arbitration really brings about leverage to move both parties to work hard to get a contract done, where we don’t have that now,” Gillotte said.
The practice of using binding arbitration to resolve union and government disputes has been around for decades.
“These are routine laws that are part of the labor relations framework,” said Justin McBride of the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment.
The strong union support for binding arbitration would seem to suggest that the process favors organized labor over elected local governments. McBride said academic studies don’t support that premise, and that neither side overwhelmingly comes out on top.
He pointed to a 2010 study from Cornell University that examined decades of negotiation outcomes in New York. One finding was that after a few years, the number of cases that wound up in arbitration declined, indicating that the sides learned to work together.
“Everyone gets a deal, and just like in a lot of contracts maybe both parties aren’t 100% with it, but that’s kind of the nature of collective bargaining,” McBride said.
Still, there have been instances in which decisions by independent arbitrators contributed to a municipality’s economic challenges, and elected officials were unable to unwind the rulings.
In her interview with The Times, Horvath said arbitrators would be expected to make decisions that consider the county’s fiscal situation.
“That’s what this is designed to do,” she said.
While no formal opponents to Measure A are listed on the ballot, some progressive groups aren’t on board. The voter guides for community organization L.A. Forward and prison abolition proponents La Defensa both urge a “no” vote. The inclusion of the Sheriff’s Department influenced that decision.
“We believe law enforcement special interest groups should not be treated as labor or given more leverage in negotiations,” La Defensa wrote in its guide. “More money and more power for the Sheriff’s Department is the crux of our opposition. By bundling deputies with firefighters and lifeguards, Measure A weaponizes a process we would otherwise support.”
Labor unions and other supporters are digging deep. The unions representing sheriff’s deputies, firefighters and other employee groups reported raising $7.7 million through mid-October to campaign in favor of Measure A, according to financial disclosure reports.
No campaign funds have been reported in opposition to Measure A.
The dueling campaigns over a Pasadena ballot measure that would levy a special tax on property owners for fire department funding are heating up in the run-up to the Nov. 3 election.
In a press release, the city of Pasadena last month encouraged neighborhood associations, homeowner groups and other organizations to host informational sessions on Measure PFD, featuring presentations from Fire Chief Chad Augustin and other city staff.
But if you ask opponents of the measure, these events are actually campaign stops.
The presentations focus on “everything that supposedly won’t happen” if the measure fails, according to a press release from the No on Measure PFD Campaign.
“The city has turned the fire department into the grassroots campaign arm for Yes on PFD,” said Matt Klink, a consultant for the No campaign.
Augustin disputed that characterization of the presentations and said he’s provided only factual information about the measure so residents can understand the choices before them. “That, in my mind, is education, not advocacy,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Yes on Measure PFD Campaign has accused the No campaign of running a digital ad and using website language suggesting that local firefighters don’t support the measure.
“None of the Pasadena firefighters support a no on Measure PFD,” said Raffy Bitchakdjian, president of the Pasadena Firefighters Assn. 809. “So for them to use our name, our likeness, and actually go say that is very deceptive.”
KALAMA, Wash. — Colorado and Washington are reliably Democratic states where elected officials have rejected moves to ban transgender women and girls from female sports competitions. Now activists have gone around lawmakers to put proposed bans on both states’ ballots.
At a time when some Democratic leaders nationwide are recalibrating their approach to transgender issues, particularly sports, and polls show Americans generally back the bans, supporters are optimistic they will pass and open the door to similar efforts in other places where lawmakers have blocked bans.
Though the issue has been debated in many legislatures, this is the first time it’s going to voters.
“What is happening in 2026 is a testing ground for the future,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which supports LGBTQ+ rights.
Twenty-seven states — including all where Republicans control both the legislature and governor’s office — already have such laws.
The efforts are billed as a way to protect women and girls and keep separate spaces for them, tapping into a concern that’s gained momentum. President Trump has taken steps to roll back transgender rights. The Supreme Court has upheld state sports bans.
A June poll from Quinnipiac University found that about 7 in 10 registered voters think transgender women and girls should not be allowed to play on female sports teams. About one-quarter think they should. Democrats are divided, with about half saying transgender women and girls should be allowed and about half saying they should not.
Robert Preuhs, a professor of political science at Metropolitan State University of Denver, said the absence of public polls on Colorado’s ballot measure, which also covers college sports, makes it hard to predict whether it will pass. “It’s probably going to get more support than some of the Republican candidates that will run,” he said.
Since transgender restrictions gained traction this decade, states with Democratic-led governors’ offices and legislatures generally have rejected proposals such as banning transgender people from the bathrooms that match their gender identity and restricting gender-affirming care. Most Republican-led states have adopted those policies.
In addition to the two blue-state questions, a measure in Arizona would broaden an existing ban to include private schools, and one in Nebraska would add an existing state law to the state constitution.
There’s not a clear consensus on whether transgender women and girls have a competitive advantage. Factors include the age of the athlete, the sport, whether the athlete went through male puberty and how long they’ve received hormone therapy.
But the idea that girls are being cheated is personal for some athletes.
Ahnaleigh Wilson, a 17-year-old junior at Eastmont High School, about 25 miles north of Seattle, has been speaking out against allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports since she was in junior high. She said she’d won all of her 1,600-meter races in seventh and eighth grade — until she finished second to a transgender athlete in a major meet.
“Women have fought for Title IX and our own categories and it’s very important that we keep the dignity of that, and let women have their own sports and their own spaces to be safe and completely fair,” she said, referencing the federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities.
Opponents say excluding transgender girls is also unfair.
“They will say that they want to protect kids and in particular, young girls,” said Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado, which is leading the opposition to the measure there, “but I don’t understand how you can protect kids and discriminate against kids at the same time.”
The Washington measure would require that a healthcare provider verify the student’s “biological sex, relying only on one or more of the following: The student’s reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels.”
“We see that as being as simple as a checkbox,” said Let’s Go Washington spokesperson Hallie Herzberg. “Doctors can use the history of the patient from treating them all their lives or their medical history forms.”
But Dr. Libby Loft, who opposes the measure, says the language calls for a genital inspection as part of a physical, or expensive testing.
“I think it doesn’t make any sense to force the working families of … girl sports players in Washington to pay for unnecessary medical tests to be able to weed out an estimated five or 10 girls in the state of Washington, trans girls,” Loft said.
She fears the verification requirement will lead to fewer girls — transgender or not — playing sports.
Mulvihill and Cooper write for the Associated Press. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.
More than $351 million in political donations has been poured into a high-stakes contest about a proposed wealth tax on the November ballot, making it one of the most costly campaigns in California history.
About 90% of the money is being spent to defeat a statewide initiative to impose a new tax on the assets of billionaires, a multifaceted opposition effort bankrolled primarily by ultra-rich Californians being targeted by a measure that supporters call an economic reckoning.
The billionaire tax, Proposition 40, would levy a one-time, 5% tax on many assets of California billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1.
Millions of dollars continue to flow into the campaigns of three intertwined ballot initiatives at the center of the debate: Proposition 40, and Propositions 41 and Proposition 42, which would neuter the Proposition 40 through strategic, esoteric tax law changes.
“The pro-40 campaign picked a fight and then came to that fight with a butter knife against a nuclear arsenal,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who is not involved in any of the wealth-tax-related ballot measures. “Because they’re so well funded, in today’s multifaceted media world, they are able to show up everywhere from network TV to inside video games. That is a very, very large advantage few campaigns ever get to have.”
But, Stutzman warned, money does not guarantee a win.
In the most expensive ballot measure fights in California history, $463 million was spent on two gambling proposals 2022. The initiatives pitted some of California’s most successful Native American tribes with gaming interests against gambling corporations, including online sports gaming companies DraftKings and FanDuel. Both side’s measure failed.
People attend a rally against Proposition 40 at the Iron Workers Apprenticeship Training Center on Oct. 5 in La Palma.
(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)
The tax measure was crafted by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West in response to federal healthcare funding cuts signed by President Trump last year that are expected to reduce California’s healthcare budget by $100 billion, burdening the state’s most vulnerable residents.
“Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ slashes healthcare funding, with major coverage cuts scheduled to hit after the midterms,” said Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff. “More than 3 million Californians could lose their health insurance. Hospitals and emergency rooms face closure. Patients will die unnecessarily when the care they need is no longer there. Proposition 40 is an emergency response to that looming disaster.”
The proposition’s supporters raised $34.3 million, nearly all of it from Jimenez’s union.
The two other measures, Propositions 41 and 42, would nullify the billionaire tax if either receives more votes.
Proposition 41 supporters say the measure aims to cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits for new state special taxes and would bar new state taxes that exempt their revenue from a state spending limit. Backers of Proposition 42 argue it would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings, individually owned assets and other forms of personal savings.
Advocates for the billionaire tax say both are well-financed smokescreens to undercut Proposition 40.
Opposition campaigns to the wealth tax as well as the two countermeasures have received enormous donations from several of the state’s billionaires. But Building a Better California, the main funder of efforts to defeat the wealth tax, noted that its allies included Democratic and Republican politicians, prominent labor groups and business leaders.
“It’s rare for such a broad coalition to unite around any single cause in California, but it reflects the potentially devastating impact of this measure on healthcare, education, and our state’s economy,” the group said in a statement.
Among the largest donors opposing the wealth tax are billionaires Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google who has donated more than $100 million to anti-wealth-tax efforts, and former Google leader Eric Schmidt and venture capitalist L. John Doerr, who each kicked in $40 million.
Brin, Schmidt and Doerr did not respond to requests for comment.
US tech entrepreneur Sergey Brin and Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto arrive for the 2026 Met Gala celebrating “Costume Art” at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in May.
(ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images)
The spending disparity also reflects a divide among Democrats and their allies, many of whom support wealth taxes, but argue that the way Proposition 40 was written is disastrous to California’s volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s wealthiest residents.
Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said that while her organization would support a nationwide or a California wealth tax, their primary concerns are about 40’s impacts on the state budget and healthcare in the state.
“We are opposed to this particular proposal because we think it does more harm than good,” she said, adding that after what her organization “faced last year having to scramble for dollars because of [federal funding cuts] we are committed to work with the stakeholders facing cuts and not harming the budget and finding revenue in a smart way.”
The cash imbalance between supporters and opponents of the billionaire tax is vast. Those opposed to the measure raised $316.7 million, while proponents raised nearly $34.3 million.
The Fair Games Coalition, made up of community leaders, labor organizations and advocates, announce the launch of the Overpaid CEO Tax Initiative in front of the Tesla Diner in West Hollywood in January.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
The supporters of the wealth tax spent nearly all of their money gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot. They had $1.6 million on hand as of Oct. 17.
Now, as voters cast ballots, their campaign appears reliant on public events and media coverage, such as of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) recent rally in support of Proposition 40 in downtown Los Angeles.
“What you are showing people from coast to coast and all over is that, yes, we can take on the greed of the oligarchs,” he said, calling it the most important ballot measure in the country. “Yes, we can create an economy and a government that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent.”
Facebook creator and Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg was among the California billionaires Sanders name-checked in his remarks. After Zuckerberg told company leaders that he planned to leave the state to avoid his control over the company substantially reduced by being forced to sell enough of his stock in the social media giant to pay the proposed levy, the company on Wednesday announced the creation of a new, non-voting type of stock that would allow Zuckerberg to sell enough shares to pay the proposed tax while retaining his voting power in exchange for him agreeing to remain in the state for eight years.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg listens as President Trump speaks to reporters at the White House on Sept. 29.
(Jacquelyn Martin / Ap Photo/jacquelyn Martin)
The pro-wealth-tax campaign is sending voters emails and texts and has an online presence.
“Remember: it’s not enough to vote YES on 40. You also need to vote NO on 41 + 42,” read an email sent to voters on Tuesday. “Don’t be fooled: Props 41 and 42 are billionaire-funded initiatives designed specifically to undermine Prop 40, the California Billionaire Tax.”
Meanwhile, the anti-40 and pro-42 campaigns are inundating voters on television, streaming services, in mailboxes, through online influencers and even in digital video games such as Sim City.
Jimenez said voters will see through the blizzard of campaign messaging.
“The billionaires think voters are stupid. They think they can bury the facts under millions of dollars in advertising and disguise Prop. 42 … as protection for ordinary taxpayers,” she said. “Their spending also makes our case for us. When billionaires can afford to spend millions a day protecting their fortunes, voters can see that billionaires have plenty of money to spare.”
Sheri Sadler, a veteran Democratic media buyer, questioned how much voters were hearing about the rationale for the proposed billionaire tax.
“The yes side is severely lacking in getting their message through while the no side is dipping into different kinds of pockets,” she said.
Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, said that beyond voter confusion about the competing ballot measures, it is certain to face legal challenges, notably about the retroactive nature of the tax, which would apply to any billionaire who lived in California as of Jan. 1. She described that as “the biggest legal pressure point.”
“It’s kind of a mess,” she said.
Times staff writer Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee contributed to this report.
Buying a home in California requires a colossal amount of money — and coming up with a 20% cash down payment of $180,000 for a median price home is a staggering hurdle for many would-be buyers.
That down payment amount is based on the statewide median $900,000 price tag for a house, according to recent data from the California Assn. of Realtors. In Los Angeles County, the median price for a single-family home is $935,000. In Orange County, it’s $1.5 million.
Proposition 37 on the Nov. 3 ballot would allow the state to amass a $25 billion down payment assistance program for middle-class households. For perspective on the enormity of the measure before voters, one of the state’s existing down payment programs, California Dream For All, launched several years ago with $500 million, just 2% of the funding involved in Proposition 37.
The ballot measure would allow qualified prospective homebuyers to borrow up to 17% of the sales price of a new home, contributing 3% of the down payment from their own funds.
The program would not be funded by taxpayers, but instead by the interest charged to borrowers on their down payment loans, also referred to as second mortgages. The measure has garnered widespread support, including from Gov. Gavin Newsom, statewide unions and mayors from Santa Monica to San José.
“Prop. 37 is a historic opportunity to expand homeownership opportunities for generations of working families — at zero cost or risk to taxpayers,” Newsom said in a statement.
But Proposition 37 carries a significant caveat: Any home purchased through the program must be new construction, which could limit its potential reach because of the high cost of building, some critics said.
Also, the proposition does not spell out the terms or interest rates on the loans, which would be worked out if the measure is approved. And some have questioned whether there will be sufficiently robust interest from investors to buy the state-issued bonds that will be used to fund the down payment loans.
The concept of down payment assistance is not new. Cities and states, including California, have long offered such programs to low- and middle-income homeowners, either in the form of loans or grants, and there are reportedly more than 2,700 such programs across the country.
Nevada, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York all have programs to help homebuyers afford a down payment. Since 2021, New York has dispersed $70 million in down payment assistance. In Massachusetts, more than $146 million has been doled out in down payment help to homebuyers since 2020.
How the program would work
Under Proposition 37, down payment loans would work like any other, and would carry an interest rate and payback period — all of which would be determined by the California Housing Finance Agency.
To qualify, borrowers would need to have lived in the state for at least a year and earn no more than 200% of the local median income; in Los Angeles County, for example, that equates to a family of four earning no more than $216,200 a year.
Borrowers don’t have to be first-time homebuyers, which is often a requirement of down payment aid programs. But they would need to live in the home.
The program would restrict the price of qualifying homes, depending on the county where someone is trying to buy. A general estimate, though, is that would-be homebuyers would be limited to houses costing between $1 million and $1.5 million and the homes, more importantly, would need to be new construction.
While Proposition 37 has little opposition, and is supported by unions, chambers of commerce and organizations representing builders, the League of Women Voters opposes the ballot measure, concerned it would saddle residents with too much debt and that the terms of these loans are opaque, the details worked out only after the vote.
New homes only
Only buyers of newly-built homes would be eligible for these loans. That could include existing commercial buildings that had been converted into homes, such as condos or townhomes.
This provision is uncommon as many existing down payment assistance programs don’t strictly limit the type of home someone can buy — only the sale price. Bob Hertzberg, former Senate Majority Leader and the architect of the proposal, said he wanted Proposition 37 to spur new construction.
By creating more demand for new homes, he said, the hope is that builders will respond en masse.
But some groups are wary of this logic. One analysis, funded by the Proposition 37 campaign, estimated that this program could result in the building of 190,000 homes in the state, although the report’s author said it was “impossible to know” the true number given the various factors that impact housing.
Matthew Lewis, director of communications for California YIMBY, an organization that advocates making it easier and cheaper to build homes, said high prices make it clear that the demand for homes already exists and that Proposition 37 does little to address a bigger issue: the cost of building.
“In concept, [Proposition 37 is] a great idea,” Lewis said. “The thing we’re concerned about is, California is still way behind on its housing production goals, so there’s the risk of an unintended consequence of instead of having 10 people bidding on a house, now you’ve given a couple folks down payment assistance, and so there’s now 12 people bidding on the same house.”
To drive builders to construct eligible homes, the measure would allow them to opt into a “qualified builder” option. As long as they adhere to price caps, agree to certain labor requirements and fix repairs that arise, they’re protected from lawsuits from buyers concerning defects 10 years after construction of the home.
Homebuilders say even given some relief from litigation, they aren’t sure Proposition 37 would push construction into overdrive.
“There are so many more things the state, city and county could do to help add more supply [of homes],” said Paul Schon, a developer who builds apartments in L.A. County. He said tackling permitting times and red tape involved in building would have a greater impact. “This is minor,” he said.
Interest rates could be a tough sell
Many down payment assistance programs offer interest-free loans to homebuyers, including an existing program run by CalHFA.
But in order to be self-funding, the fixed-rate loans offered through Proposition 37 would carry interest. If passed, the state would issue revenue bonds, selling them to investors and using that money to issue loans to homebuyers. The investors are repaid with the interest paid on the loans.
Revenue bonds are generally viewed as riskier than other types of government bonds, in part because they’re backed by the promise of revenue from a specific project — in this case, payment by individual borrowers. That means interest rates on these loans could be higher than borrowers might like or be able to afford.
Hertzberg said he’s talked to investors who may be willing to buy these bonds at cheaper rates, given the crushing issue the funding is trying to solve. This would keep interest rates down for borrowers. He said he’s appealing to foundations and socially-minded tech leaders.
One of the biggest financial backers of the measure is the political nonprofit Building a Better California, which has been fighting the billionaire’s tax with help from wealthy donors, including Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
Hertzberg, for his part, refused to name any organization or person who may be interested in buying the bonds that would fund this program.
This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative,funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to addressCalifornia’s economic divide.
When a county judge put the brakes on what would be the largest data center in California, ruling the whole project needed extensive environmental review, Kristian Salgado was relieved.
The community organizer lives in Imperial County, where the nearly one-million-square-foot facility was proposed. The rural county near the Mexico border struggles with bad air pollution and has one the state’s highest rates of asthma hospitalization for kids, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. One of Salgado’s nephews lives right next to the site and struggles with the respiratory disease.
“It just seemed very unusual that a project of this scale, with that many backup generators could be permitted without requiring any further [analysis] of what that would mean for residents,” she said.
Now, Salgado and others who share her concern believe Proposition 45 on the November ballot could roll back their wins. The initiative changes the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, a law intended to inform decision makers and the public about a project’s possible environmental impacts — and mitigate them to the extent possible.
Supporters say Prop 45 will speed up environmental review for essential housing, transportation, water, health, education and other projects, cutting costly delays and passing the savings on to consumers. Opponents say it not only weakens environmental protections for many developments, but will cover potentially polluting ones — including data centers. The Yes on 45 campaign forcefully rejects the data center claim, but independent legal experts are divided.
At the heart of the debate is the definition of one of the categories covered by Prop 45: “broadband internet access projects” or “mass-market retail service … that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all internet endpoints.”
Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., which supports the proposition, was adamant: “We specifically excluded data centers” when crafting the measure.
Yet the proposition expressly names certain excluded projects: nuclear energy, high-speed rail, jails and Delta conveyance facilities. Data centers aren’t among them.
Dunmoyer maintains that even if they’re not explicitly listed, data centers just don’t fit the measure’s definition.
In a Daily Journal op-ed, Rachelle Chong, a former Federal Communications Commission member, similarly argues that the definition refers to internet access bought from a provider like AT&T or Comcast. “A conventional data center ordinarily performs an entirely different function,” she wrote, arguing data centers aren’t in play.
But land use attorneys Matthew McKerley and Richard Frank, in another op-ed, say many modern data centers fit the bill because they house equipment used to transmit consumer data to and from the internet.
They also highlight conspicuous campaign finance contributions, including $250,000 from Prologis, which developed two data centers in San Jose.
Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley Law, said data centers will argue they fit the definition — and then it will be up to the courts to decide.
“Anyone telling you that it’s definitely not going to be data centers, they cannot read the future,” he said. “The way they’ve written the language, they can’t provide 100% assurance.”
Eric Biber, a UC Berkeley law school professor with expertise in environmental law, pointed to language in the measure requiring it to be interpreted broadly “to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and realization of, essential projects.” In a blog post, he called it “a thumb on the scale” that could lead courts to conclude that projects should be covered when their eligibility is in doubt.
But Ryan Thomason and J. Scott Miller, partners at the law firm Mitchell Chadwick with CEQA expertise, think it’s likely courts would rule otherwise. In an article, they note that the definition used in the measure hews closely to another section of California law, which distinguishes providing internet services from offering content, services and applications online. “Courts generally interpret identical language in related statutes to have the same meaning,” they write.
Dunmoyer, of the California Building Industry Ass., stressed that the measure doesn’t overthrow local zoning rules.
Opponents are “making it sound like in your backyard will be a data center,” he said. “Well, that doesn’t happen at all by this initiative. That has to happen by a county board of supervisors voting to put a data center in your backyard. And if they decide to do that, this initiative does nothing to expedite that CEQA review.”
But what if local officials run afoul of their constituents? In the case of the Imperial Valley Data Center Campus, the roughly 75 acres of unincorporated land where it would go had already been zoned for data centers. As a result, county officials said they had the power to move forward with the facility for artificial intelligence computing infrastructure without city approval.
They granted the project an exemption from the state environmental review.
Then came the backlash. Residents spoke out at public meetings, rallied on the streets, circulated a petition and formed a community organization. The city of Imperial and the Sierra Club sued. In the wake of the outrage, the county walked back its decision, declaring a moratorium on data centers. (The developer sued the county over the ban, and the county recently rescinded it following a court order.)
If Prop 45 passes — and data centers are covered by it — Eric Biber, of UC Berkeley Law, told The Times that such a moratorium wouldn’t be possible. That’s because the measure prevents state and local officials from changing the rules for a project once its application is submitted, he said. So if a community didn’t have a moratorium in place and its zoning laws allow a data center, “They’re done,” said. Existing bans aren’t expected to be affected.
Attorneys for the No on Prop 45 campaign argue that it could have real-world impacts for the Imperial Valley facility, saying the developer could claim the new rules apply. For instance, the measure would prevent courts from overturning approvals of qualifying projects because of CEQA violations. Courts would only be able to halt the affected portion of the project while the issue is fixed.
Sebastian Rucci, principal developer of the Imperial Valley data center, said he will fight for his project to move forward and that there’s an environmentally sound way to do it. He said he’s willing to negotiate and mitigate where necessary — but will not go through the CEQA process. If push comes to shove, he said he’ll move the project elsewhere. California could “get in the game” or be left in the dust, he said.
Imperial Valley Computer Manufacturing, the company behind the project, says it will create at least 100 permanent jobs and generate $28.7 million in annual property tax revenue.
CEQA requirements “are not about the environment,” Rucci said. “They may be for some, but they’re not for many. For many, they are about killing things.”
