proposition

SACRAMENTO — A billionaire-funded political group gave a $5-million donation to the campaign opposing California’s proposed wealth tax, the first of many expected in the expensive fight over a ballot question dividing the state.

If approved by voters, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who were residing in the state at the start of this year to pay primarily for healthcare.

The ballot measure has splintered California Democrats and their allies, who are at odds over which public services would receive a portion of the revenue and Proposition 40’s long-term impact on the state budget.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra and groups including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the California Teachers Assn. oppose the tax, arguing it could push many of the state’s biggest taxpayers to relocate and in effect destabilize the state’s finances.

On Monday, nine Democratic state lawmakers announced their opposition to Proposition 40, writing in an open letter to voters that “while well-intentioned, this measure will blow a massive hole in our state budget in the years ahead and undermine our ability to sustain investments in the very priorities Prop 40 claims to support.” Its signers included Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks), Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier) and John Harabedian (D-Pasadena).

The California Democratic Party, the California Federation of Labor Unions and progressive officials including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) support the tax, which is intended to raise roughly $100 billion over five years to backfill federal cuts to healthcare and other social safety net programs by President Trump and the Republican-led Congress.

To this point, Building a Better California — a group funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other members of the Silicon Valley elite — has focused on qualifying two ballot measures meant to defang the billionaire tax while maintaining a neutral position on Proposition 40 itself.

That changed over the weekend when the group of billionaires officially came out against the measure and reported the $5-million donation to the anti-Proposition 40 campaign backed by teachers and firefighters unions.

A handful of billionaires have pumped more than $156 million into Building a Better California, mostly from Brin, who has given more than $100 million to the group. It has also received more than $17 million from venture capitalist L. John Doerr, $12 million from Ripple Labs founder Chris Larsen and $3 million from philanthropist and former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt.

In addition to opposing the wealth tax, Building a Better California announced support for Proposition 3, which would permanently extend an existing tax on certain high earners, along with two housing bonds.

The group has already spent more than $127 million on two competing ballot measures written to weaken or nullify the billionaire tax: Proposition 41 would require audits for new state special taxes and prohibit new taxes from being excluded from the state spending limit. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on assets such as as personal property, intellectual property and retirement accounts.

If Proposition 40 passes but either Proposition 41 or Proposition 42 receive more votes, the billionaire tax would be voided.

“A few controversial billionaires like Sergey Brin would rather spend millions to fund shady opposition campaigns than simply pay their fair share in taxes so millions of their fellow Californians don’t lose their healthcare. That’s shameful,” said Debru Carthan, executive vice president of Service Employees International United-Healthcare Workers West, the union that collected the signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

Abby Lunardini, a spokesperson for Building a Better California, said the state “is at an inflection point” due to its high cost of living and taxes.

“California’s future rests on both maintaining our economic competitiveness and making smart, accountable public investments that improve affordability and quality of life for all,” Lunardini wrote in a statement. “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 $5-million donation is the largest reported by the Proposition 40 opposition campaign, which wrote in a statement that it “welcomes support from everyone — teachers, doctors, hospitals, community clinics, firefighters, housing advocates, blue-collar unions, entrepreneurs, small businesses, Democrats, and Republicans.”

The donation indicates that members of the opposition coalition — and not billionaires — will play a more visible role in campaign ads.

“Two groups in California that have the most credibility with voters are the teachers and the firefighters,” said Garry South, a Democratic strategist who has worked on past ballot measure campaigns. Making them visible messengers against Proposition 40 “is a very important credibility aspect for the No campaign.”

“Nobody likes political consultants or lawyers. They like firefighters and nurses and teachers,” Republican strategist Matt Rexroad agreed.

California voters are sharply divided over a ballot measure to impose a one-time tax on billionaires to help fund healthcare programs, a proposal already triggering a fierce and expensive political fight as the November election approaches, according to a poll released Friday.

More than half of likely voters oppose a separate measure that would require Californians to provide identification when voting and election officials to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens, the survey showed.

The two controversial proposals are among the 14 ballot measures Californians will decide in the Nov. 3 election. Proposition 40, which would impose the tax on billionaires’ assets, has reached the precipice of nationwide debates over economic inequality and liberal overreach. The Republican-led voter ID measure, Proposition 39, emerged amid President Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Among likely California voters, 48% support Proposition 40, compared with 41% who oppose the proposed wealth tax and 11% who are undecided, according to a new poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that is co-sponsored by The Times.

Proposition 40’s failure to crack 50% support among voters at this point in the electoral cycle is a potential red flag, said IGS poll director Mark DiCamillo. Traditionally, Californians who are undecided on ballot measures tend to vote against them, he said.

“It’s got an early lead, but it’s not a very large lead, and it’s not a majority,” he said. “Usually, for ballot propositions, you want the yes side to be above 50%, and that’s not where it is right now.”

The proposal was crafted by a healthcare workers’ union to compensate for an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare cuts approved by Trump and congressional Republicans that it argues will cause devastating harm to millions of California’s most vulnerable residents. Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in California as of Jan. 1, with some exceptions.

Democrats and their allies are splintered over the proposal. Some, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, argue it will prompt the wealthy to flee California, further harming its volatile budget, which is dependent on the state’s richest residents. The California Democratic Party and leading progressives support the measure, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) calling it a modest tax necessary to help Californians struggling because of cuts imposed by Republicans to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

While Democratic voters mostly support the ballot measure and Republicans largely oppose it, younger Californians are far more likely to say they plan to vote for it compared to seniors. Minorities, women and lower-income voters are also more supportive of the measure than white voters, men and Californians who earn at least $200,000 annually. Union households support the measure, while non-union families are evenly divided about it.

Turnout will be pivotal, DiCamillo said. While younger Californians are historically less likely to vote, especially in midterm elections, if they are energized by the issues championed by socialist Democrats, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, that could boost the wealth tax proposal’s prospects.

The survey found that voters are far less aware of two competing ballot measures aimed at nullifying the proposed wealth tax.

Proposition 41 would prohibit new taxes from being exempt from voter-approved state spending limits and require audits of new levies. Proposition 42 would ban new taxes on personal property and some retroactive state taxes. If the wealth tax is approved and either of the countermeasures receives more votes, the proposed billionaires’ tax would not go into effect.

The poll found that 35% of likely voters supported Proposition 41, with 37% opposing it. On Proposition 42, 40% of voters backed the measure, and 37% opposed it.

Roughly one out of every four of the voters surveyed on those two measures said they were undecided. DiCamillo said he expects that to change as the anti-wealth tax campaigns, which are expected to be well-organized and well-funded, ramp up their messaging to voters.

“There’s going to be a lot of campaigning, apparently on the no side especially. So we’ll see,” he said. “But you know, I think it’s confusing to voters in some ways.”

Among the other controversial measures on the Nov. 3 ballot is Proposition 39, a measure pushed by Republicans that would require all voters in future elections to show government-issued identification every time they vote in person or provide a special PIN or the last four digits of their Social Security number when submitting mail-in ballots.

The measure would also require the California secretary of state and county election officials to verify that registered voters are U.S. citizens by “using government data,” which according to supporters could include information in the federal Social Security Administration database, jury summons information and other government records.

Just over half of California’s likely voters oppose the ballot measure, while 42% support it. Californians are predictably divided along partisan lines. Eight out of 10 Democrats oppose the proposal, while more than nine out of 10 Republicans support it. Voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose it 54%, while 36% support it.

Proponents of voter ID contend that such laws prevent election fraud and, along with proof-of-citizenship mandates, prevent noncitizens from voting. Opponents say ID mandates threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of Americans who do not have the mandated documentation readily available, and that the restrictions are unnecessary given that voting by noncitizens is rare and already outlawed in the U.S.

The Republican-led push for the voter ID initiative comes 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 are swaying elections with illegal votes.

“It’s a very traditional Democrat versus Republican split,” DiCamillo said, adding that it would be surprising to see major shifts in the numbers. “Once these things get solidified in terms of the partisan splits, without any other kinds of splits like we’re seeing in Prop. 40, you know that’s usually the dominant theme.”

The Berkeley IGS/Times poll findings are based on an online survey in English and Spanish of 4,207 California registered voters, 2,310 of whom are considered likely voters, from Aug. 3-9. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the likely voter sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

A state judge Thursday rejected a challenge to how California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office summarized a strict new voter ID measure on November ballots — ruling that the summary language accurately describes the measure’s effects were it to pass.

Another judge dealt the backers of the measure a second loss by tentatively finding that their description of the measure, submitted for the official state voter’s guide, was misleading. They had claimed that Proposition 39 would make voting easier.

In the first case, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the label, title and summary of the certified ballot measure accurately describe Proposition 39 as a measure that “prohibits citizens from voting” — language the measure’s backers specifically objected to — unless they provide a government-issued ID.

According to minutes from a Thursday hearing on the matter, Rockwell concluded that, to the extent the measure’s backers object to that language, they are objecting to “the provisions of the measure itself.”

Rockwell rejected the argument put forth by the measure’s backers that it would not prevent people without ID from voting, only their votes from being counted — a distinction the judge found lacking.

Both parties had asked the court to move quickly ahead of printing deadlines for November ballots.

The attorney general’s office is responsible for preparing titles and summaries for ballot measures, and is not required by law to use the same language as a measure’s proponents when gathering the necessary voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

Bonta’s office had argued in court that his office applied the same standard of review to the voter ID measure as every other ballot measure that has come before his office.

Bonta praised Rockwell’s decision on social media Thursday, writing that it “confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points.”

“My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information,” he wrote. “We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the chief backer of the court challenge and chairman of the group Reform California, responded to the ruling with a video post to social media, writing that it was “expected” but nonetheless “disappointing.”

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying to “manipulate the vote” with “rigged” language, and Rockwell of being a “liberal judge” who had unsurprisingly decided that Bonta “gets to do corruptly what he wants to do.”

“It’s pissing me off,” DeMaio said in his video post.

DeMaio predicted that Proposition 39 will still pass, but that it will take “all of us spreading the word that the attorney general has tried to manipulate the title on the ballot measure.”

Voter ID requirements are being pushed by Republicans across the country — from President Trump down — as necessary to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens, despite elections experts saying that such fraud is exceedingly rare and that there is no evidence that it exists in volumes large enough to swing elections.

Democrats, including in California, have argued that states already have robust measures to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, including through existing security measures such as signature verification. They said stricter voter ID requirements would lead to eligible voters without ready access to documents being denied access to voting — including poorer, elderly and rural voters and married women who have changed their names.

A majority of California voters back stricter voter ID requirements, according to recent polls.

The Trump administration has been pressing for new voter ID requirements nationwide, including in Congress, without success.

Passage of Proposition 39 in liberal California would represent a massive win for the administration and a setback for California’s Democratic leaders. It would require substantial reforms to how the state accepts ballots both in person and through the mail — the latter being the preferred option for the vast majority of voters in recent California elections.

Backers of Proposition 39 also took a hit in a separate court proceeding Thursday, where another judge — siding with top Democratic lawmakers — issued a tentative finding that the measure’s backers were misleading voters by claiming in voter guide language that the measure would make voting easier in the state were it to pass.

“It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” wrote Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.

The voter guide language will need to change as a result.

California leaders who brought the challenge — including State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — praised the decision.

“Prop 39 is a MAGA-backed power grab by Donald Trump’s closest allies,” Rivas said in a statement. “As today’s ruling underscores, Prop 39 isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

DeMaio denounced the decision, accusing Chang of having “sided with the politicians” in California to “strike legitimate arguments on why Voter ID is needed to improve election integrity.”

The more I think about Proposition 40, the billionaire tax that will go before California voters in November, the angrier I get.

I’m angry at President Trump. His cruel slashing of Medicaid threatens the health of millions of Californians, may lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of medical jobs and is the stated reason behind Proposition 40, which would levy a one-time 5% tax on billionaires. Trump invoked government deficits, but this was really his latest attack against people he sees as losers and thus expendable — people of color, the undocumented and especially the poor. “Evil” isn’t mean enough a word to describe this.

I’m upset at what Proposition 40 proposes to do. It’s a temporary stopgap that doesn’t reverse Trump’s Medicaid cuts and won’t solve the fundamental problems facing healthcare, or all the other things that make life in California so expensive. Plus, since when has a tax happened just once?

Proposition 30 was supposed to be a temporary tax increase for Californians who earn more than $250,000 a year in the name of propping up K-12 schools and community colleges. Passed in 2012, it was supposed to expire in 2019. Instead, voters extended it to 2030 — and our public schools are in more dire need than ever.

If Proposition 40 succeeds, you know every advocacy group from Yreka to San Ysidro will propose one-time taxes in the name of rescuing something or other. But relying on new taxes, or strengthening old ones, only shows that people are out of ideas — a dangerous scenario for democracy.

I’m enraged at billionaires. In the past, California’s captains of industry — your Dohenys, Gettys, Huntingtons and so many more — at least pretended to care about the rest of society by funding charities, the arts and other things meant to better the masses. Not this generation. Their avarice, their gleeful supplication before a tyrant like Trump, their obsession with breaking things and not caring about the consequences and their indifference to how the rest of us live have made billionaires a deserved scapegoat, about as popular as a diaper rash.

I’m furious at Proposition 40’s supporters. For a generation, California’s left has treated the rich as a goose that keeps laying golden, taxable eggs, making the state budget too reliant on a sliver of the population. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget summary this year estimated that the top 1% of Californians paid about 45% of the state’s personal income taxes from 2002 through 2023. What Proposition 40 supporters don’t get is that you can only smack a goose so much to give more until it bites back, which is what California billionaires are increasingly doing by throwing their cash around to defeat any political candidate exuding a whiff of progressivism.

Mark Zuckerberg and Lauren Sanchez attend the inauguration of President Trump Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington.

(Kenny Holston-Pool / Getty Images)

I’m upset at Proposition 40’s opponents. Backing two other ballot initiatives that would neutralize Proposition 40 doesn’t amount to a convincing argument against it. A point they do argue — that picking on billionaires will alienate them, push them out of California and tank the state’s budget — is at least plausible. But it’s not a winning argument in this era of populism on both the left and right, where voters seem to approve of cutting off your nose to spite the man.

I’m disgusted by Proposition 40’s architect. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan represents everything wrong with the union movement in California. He has made a mockery out of the proposition system by continually trotting out initiatives in the name of bettering the lives of blue-collar Californians. But as my colleague Taryn Luna reported last month, Regan doesn’t even believe in what he sells: He uses the threat of ballot measures to cut deals for his members, and his members alone. Way to use the rest of us as a bargaining chip, Dave.

I’m done with Newsom. He opposes Proposition 40 in the most Newsom-esque way possible. One of his arguments is that it will scare away billionaires from California — there he goes, carrying water for oligarchs again. His other argument is even more ludicrous — that Proposition 40 isn’t enough because there should be a permanent national tax on billionaires via changes to the tax code instead of a one-off. So Californians shouldn’t go after billionaires because you want to do it? Good luck explaining that logic to voters across the country if you run for president in 2028.

I’m mad at California Democratic Party leaders. Its executive board recently endorsed Proposition 40 despite the many loyal soldiers and allies who are opposed, including gubernatorial candidate Xavier Becerra, the California Teachers Assn. and Planned Parenthood. Other unions are expected to oppose Proposition 40 or sit out the campaign, setting up the party’s latest civil war in an election year when state Democrats need the fewest distractions. But that’s the party’s leadership for you — they’ve never met an internal crisis they didn’t make worse.

I’m revolted by the California Republican Party. It entered the second Trump administration with tailwinds behind its sails after a generation of statewide failures, installing a record number of Latino GOP legislators in Sacramento and grabbing enough voters of color to imagine a future in which they once again mattered. Instead, the party’s blind devotion to Trump has left it with the moral authority of a dandruff flake.

California’s Republican congressional delegation unanimously voted for Trump’s Medicaid cuts, even though rural parts of the state, which also happen to be deep red, will be severely affected. State GOP leaders either stayed silent or cheered as Trump volleyed other financial missiles against California, including canceling billions of dollars in clean energy initiatives solely because we’re a blue state. Proposition 40 supporters just need to say that Republicans oppose the ballot measure and Californians will line up to vote “yes” like In-N-Out fans idling to grab a Double-Double.

Not me. I’m angry, for sure: The fight over Proposition 40 will add nothing but rage to this election and a redwood grove’s worth of political mailers. The Medicaid cuts will worsen life for too many people. As odious as Trump and his side have been, Proposition 40 solves too little for too short a time, while potentially making things permanently worse.

Count me as a big, beautiful “no.”

WASHINGTON — The nation is set to have its least competitive congressional election cycle in years by some measures, with California partly driving the shift.

The redistricting carried out in California and nine other states since 2024 has left the nation with an unusually low number of truly competitive districts, narrowing the battle for U.S. House control in this year’s historically consequential midterms cycle to a few dozen races at best.

In California, that looks like a paradox: The state has both a shrinking number of political battlegrounds and a handful of critical races that could help decide which party controls the House. Both are a result of Proposition 50, the Democratic-led, voter-passed redistricting effort designed to offset new maps drawn by Republicans in Texas and other states.

Only three California races are rated as competitive by Cook Political Report, the nonpartisan analyst, compared with 12 races in 2024 and nine in 2022, according to a Times analysis of Cook data.

California was also the biggest driver in the nationwide decline of competitive seats, according to a separate Cook analysis released Wednesday. Six of the 14 U.S. House seats that dropped out of the swing-seat zone in 2026 were in the Golden State.

“There’s no question that we’re seeing the consequence” of the state’s redistricting, “of having fewer competitive districts,” said Michael Latner, a professor of political science at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

That doesn’t dilute the key role California is expected to play in Democrats’ effort to win the House majority, however. The new map made some blue seats safer and gave the party the chance to flip up to five red seats.

“The path to the House majority still runs through California,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who said the party is investing heavily to flip those seats.

‘Not backing off’

The fight for the majority at the halfway point of President Trump’s second term is fierce. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, face headwinds fueled by voters’ feelings on the economy and the war in Iran. Democrats have built their campaigns around Americans’ economic frustration in an attempt to win the House majority and regain some power in Trump’s Washington.

Having more safe seats positions California to have a greater effect on the election, said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, and in Congress afterward, where the state is expected to have a large blue delegation.

The less-competitive map is a return to the 2000s for California, when the state’s two parties agreed on a congressional map that created safe districts for both, Kousser said.

That decade saw fewer competitive House races before new maps created more battleground areas in 2010 and 2020, the result of regular redistricting that occurs every decade after the U.S. census.

The shift in the state’s competitive seats caused by Proposition 50’s partisan redistricting was so acute because the existing 2020 map was relatively neutral, Cook senior editor David Wasserman said in the report. In Florida, Missouri and Texas, by contrast, the maps Republicans replaced were already partisan, making the shifts less extreme.

Three of the seats Democrats targeted with Proposition 50 are rated as solidly blue, while two present fights: the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao, the state’s only toss-up race per Cook, and the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Darrell Issa in the San Diego area, where the redrawn district now slightly favors Democrats.

Just one seat Republicans hope to flip is rated competitively by Cook, that of Democrat Adam Gray in the Central Valley. Democrats are slightly more favored there under the new map, but it presents a challenge for both parties.

Both parties view California’s three most competitive races as key to win, and each is putting resources toward a few additional contests.

“We’re not backing off a single seat in California,” said Christian Martinez, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “We’re on offense.”

Shrinking battlegrounds nationwide

This year’s push by Republicans to redo state maps ahead of the November election — and California’s move to respond in kind — was without precedent. Ten states approved new maps; before this year, only two states had voluntarily redrawn maps between censuses for partisan advantage since 1970, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.

It was partly enabled by a spring Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for states to redraw their election maps to eliminate voting districts that were drawn with race as a consideration.

The 10 new maps supercharged an ongoing national trend of polarization that has seen the number of competitive seats shrink over the last 30 years. The country used to see election cycles with as many as 50 seats rated as toss-ups, said Erin Covey, who leads the Cook Political Report’s U.S. House coverage, something that has not happened since 2010. As of this week, just 18 of 435 House districts are rated as toss-ups by Cook.

California is not alone in having fewer battlegrounds; no state has a high concentration of competitive seats this cycle. Michigan had four under Cook’s ratings, and Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York and Texas each had three as of this week.

That could be unhealthy for democracy, experts said. Voters can feel as though their votes matter less, and it may contribute to negative public opinion about how the electoral system functions, Latner said.

“The very premise of a free republic is that you are going to have differences in views,” Latner said. “The way those differences get resolved is through electoral competition.”

The erosion of “free and fair competition … is a threat to all voters, regardless of their partisanship,” he added.

Eyes on key races

In California’s most competitive race, Valadao is being challenged in the redrawn 22nd District by progressive college professor Randy Villegas. Republicans are bullish about their chances to retain the seat.

In the neighboring 13th District, which the new map aimed to make safer for Democrats, Gray faces former Stockton mayor and Marine veteran Kevin Lincoln. Also important for both parties is the battle for the 48th District, the seat vacated by Issa. Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, faces Democrat Marni von Wilpert, a San Diego City Council member.

Republicans have also targeted Rep. Derek Tran’s Democratic seat in the 45th District, another former battleground that Proposition 50 made safer for Democrats, and three other seats that Cook rates as solidly Democratic.

Democrats’ safer flips target Northern California’s 1st and Sacramento County’s 6th districts. They also expect to gain a seat in the new 41st District, which now covers parts of Los Angeles and Orange counties. The new map gave Democrats a Democratic voter registration edge there and forced Republican incumbent Ken Calvert to run in the newly drawn 40th District against fellow Republican Rep. Young Kim.

SACRAMENTO — One of California’s most powerful labor unions declined to endorse a proposed state billionaires tax, a blow to its backers and a sign of simmering divisions on the left over the controversial ballot measure.

The executive board for Service Employees International Union California voted Wednesday to take a neutral position on the tax, which will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 40. It would impose a one-time, 5% tax on the assets of billionaires who resided in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026.

In a statement, the 750,000-member union noted revenue from the “one-time tax proposal [is] dedicated 90% to healthcare,” echoing concerns from other unions opposed to the measure. Teacher, police and firefighter unions argue the tax would largely benefit the healthcare sector and fear it would destabilize the state budget and, along with it, services such as education and public safety.

SEIU California is a parent organization of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the union that crafted the measure and moved to put it on the ballot before securing broad support from other labor groups.

SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said he pushed the tax to backfill an estimated $100 billion in cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs that California is expected to shoulder under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump last year.

“Trump’s ‘Big, Ugly Bill’ slashed funding for healthcare in California to pay for more billionaire tax breaks. Now, millions of Californians are losing their health coverage, and millions more are being forced to pay skyrocketing costs,” SEIU-UHW Press Secretary Renee Saldana wrote in a statement to The Times.

Saldana pointed to an internal poll showing 70% of union members in California would support the billionaire tax, adding: “We’re confident that SEIU members will be joining millions of their fellow Californians and voting YES on Prop. 40 this November to protect healthcare, keep hospitals and clinics open, and stand with California working families.”

In negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom last month, Regan offered to pull the tax from the ballot in exchange for concessions for his union, including help securing contracts at several medical facilities around the state, two sources told The Times. Regan denies making the demand, and said the proposal is meant to solve an impending “catastrophe in California’s healthcare system.”

Several unions and Democratic allies, including Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, argue the one-time tax is the wrong solution for the cuts, which are unlikely to be reversed while Republicans hold power in Washington.

SEIU California said its members are focused on “a multi-year campaign to secure California’s fiscal foundation with ongoing revenue,” including an effort to tax large companies that pay wages low enough that their workers rely on public benefits.

Surrounded by members of the SEIU California executive board, Newsom this month signed a bill punting the “Fair Share” measure to next year, when a new governor will take office.

Some labor unions and elected Democrats worry that, in the long run, the proposed billionaire tax will hurt the state budget — which raises more money from wealthy people taxed at higher rates — by pushing rich Californians to move to other states.

Some already have. Google co-founder Sergey Brin last year moved to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to preemptively avoid the tax, and has pumped $82 million into a committee fighting Proposition 40.

Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential contender, has begun arguing for a federal wealth tax that the rich could not escape by moving to a new state.

“You may not be able to pick up and move to Texas or Florida to shelter your income from taxation, but I promise you that billionaires can, and do,” he wrote on Substack in June. “The fight belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

SEIU California on Wednesday also announced “strong opposition” to Proposition 39, a proposed voter ID measure; and Proposition 43, which would make it harder for local governments to raise taxes.

SACRAMENTO — As the architect of a one-time tax on California billionaires, Dave Regan says he’s pushing the measure to raise $100 billion to protect low-income patients, workers and hospitals from President Trump’s cuts to healthcare.

The behind-the-scenes negotiations with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office in June to pull the measure off the ballot, however, revealed another possible goal, according to two sources familiar with the talks who requested anonymity to share details of the discussions with The Times.

Regan, the president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, asked for union contracts with two hospitals in San Diego and Fresno and a clinic in Imperial County, among a list of sweeping demands to grow his union, in exchange for rescinding the measure, the sources said.

The union leader denied that he asked for concessions for his union in exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot, calling the allegations “categorically false.”

“We are trying to solve a problem,” Regan said. “The problem is to prevent a catastrophe in California’s healthcare system. We put forward a proposal. Nobody else has offered a solution, and none of what you are referencing happened.”

The talks failed to result in a deal and the measure will appear as Proposition 40 on the November ballot, leaving California voters to decide pivotal tax policy that has roiled the Democratic Party and opponents worry could ultimately reduce revenue for the state budget.

The terms Regan allegedly laid out raise the question of whether he intended for the billionaire tax to go on the ballot, or if it was designed as a leverage play to expand his union, which represents more than 120,000 workers and is among the largest healthcare unions in the nation.

Regan, who has been elected to five consecutive terms as union president since 2011, has a record of launching ballot initiatives at the state and local level to use as leverage for union expansion and to thwart his political opponents.

His foes say that this year he went too far.

“It’s no secret in Sacramento that the ballot initiative has been used this way by UHW as a weapon,” said Francisco Silva, president of the California Primary Care Assn., which represents community clinics. “They’ve been very vocal about it and we think it’s a bigger risk to the safety net than any benefit that it brings.”

Known as a stubborn negotiator and a brash personality, Regan has filed multiple ballot initiatives against the healthcare industry.

His opponents say his strategy centers on launching initiatives that would hurt employers, which forces them to come to the table to negotiate. Regan’s union then requests union contracts or other concessions that could pave the way for a collective bargaining agreement. If employers resist, the initiative advances to the ballot. Voters consistently reject his measures, but companies still spend millions of dollars campaigning against them.

Over the years, Regan has proposed multiple measures that would have limited charges and executive salaries at hospitals and dropped the initiatives after landing temporary deals with the California Hospital Assn. that could help his union’s organizing efforts.

This year, UHW agreed to call off an initiative to again cap compensation for hospital leaders, and the hospital association rescinded its dueling proposal to require the union to seek approval from its members to spend more than $1 million on a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Regan led and lost measures against the dialysis industry in 2018, 2020 and 2022 as he struggled to force dialysis companies to recognize his union and negotiate a contract.

Silva accused Regan of using the same playbook in negotiations around another measure on the November ballot, Proposition 44, which would restrict spending at nonprofit community health clinics.

Regan drafted Proposition 44 to require that community clinics spend 90% of revenue on patient services, which he said ensures that money is aligned with the mission of the health centers. But Silva said the measure dramatically reduces funding for other essential services in the community care model, such as community outreach, education, overhead costs, technology and medical equipment investments, and programs that bring people living on the streets into the healthcare system.

About 70% of the patients community clinics serve are insured through Medi-Cal, and the rest are either on Medicare or uninsured, with a small portion on private insurance, Silva said. The measure would result in layoffs and clinics being forced to close, and ultimately reduce access to care for low-income Californians, he said.

“One of the things that stands out that really highlights the abuse of the ballot initiative process in this instance is that the substance of what’s on the ballot has nothing to do with what he wants to negotiate with us,” Silva said. “The request was to guarantee 25,000 workers, or else.”

Regan also denied that he asked the clinics to support his unionization efforts in exchange for dropping Proposition 44.

“We wanted to construct a relationship with the clinic association that prioritized appropriate funding of the community clinics in California, including restoring the healthcare cuts that were introduced by the ‘One Big [Beautiful] Bill,’” Regan said. “It was a strategic relationship where we’re working in a mutually cooperative way to properly fund the healthcare system to respect workers, and they were not interested in that.”

Regan’s opponents say his strategy runs afoul of the purpose of direct democracy and pushes the bounds of legality.

During negotiations on the billionaire tax, essentially put the onus on Newsom to force unrelated private hospitals and clinics to unionize their employees, the sources said.

Despite a desire to call off the tax measure, Newsom’s office couldn’t provide guarantees to satisfy Regan’s demands, according to those sources.

California legislators changed state law in 2014 to provide more flexibility around initiative negotiations and to allow proponents to pull measures off the ballot after they gather enough signatures and qualify for the election, said Mary-Beth Moylan, an associate professor of law at McGeorge School of Law.

State law also prohibits a proponent of an initiative from bargaining for money or a thing of value in exchange for abandoning their measure, which hasn’t been tested in court, she said.

“I think the intention behind the law allowing the ballot measures to be negotiated off was that the negotiation would be for the Legislature to do the thing that you’re bringing about in the measure,” Moylan said. “It is not to use it as leverage for obtaining something else.”

Regan’s wealth measure retroactively applies a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires who were residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.

He and advocates of his proposal cast it as a solution to the healthcare cuts from the Trump administration. It comes as the progressive message on wealth inequality has gained support in California and beyond.

“What’s remarkable about the situation is that everyone — the governor, the Legislature, the healthcare industry — everyone agrees that the ‘One Big Beautiful’ bill is going to result in 3.5 million people losing healthcare coverage, 150,000 frontline healthcare workers losing their jobs, community clinics and hospitals closing, and all of us who buy or receive our healthcare through job-based insurance are spending more on premiums, deductibles, and copays because the legislation defunded healthcare and in return gave yet another round of huge tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans,” Regan said. “That’s why we have put Proposition 40 forward.”

Newsom contends that Regan’s solution won’t work.

Instead of paying more California taxes, billionaires would simply pick up and move to another state with a lower tax rate before the start of the year, the governor warned. The state budget is dependent on income taxes the rich pay on stock market and similar profits.

A report from the Hoover Institution at Stanford University estimated that the tax would generate only $40 billion, not the $100 billion proponents claim, largely because of an expected exodus of billionaires. Overall, the tax would result in an estimated loss for the state of $24.7 billion, with the permanent decline in future income tax revenue due to billionaire migration eclipsing any gains from the one-time levy, according to the report.

Regan rejected the findings of the report and cast doubt on the amount of taxes that billionaires actually pay in California.

Newsom sought to negotiate with Regan to remove the billionaire tax from the ballot before the beginning of the year. At the time, Regan said he wanted an extra $20 billion for healthcare in 2027-28, which is beyond Newsom’s time in office and not something the outgoing governor could promise, according to two sources familiar with the negotiations.

Regan said he never asked for $20 billion in funding for healthcare to remove the billionaire tax from the ballot. He said he was open to hearing alternative solutions that never came.

“But did we ever make a proposal, or did we ever receive a proposal for something different?” Regan said. “The answer is no.”

In the spring, Newsom began working to form a coalition against the initiative that includes Planned Parenthood, doctors and firefighters while billionaires launched a series of counterproposals.

In an unusual split within labor, major unions such as the California Teachers Assn. and the State Building and Construction Trades Council oppose the measure. Teamsters California and AFSCME California joined Regan. The SEIU California State Council and California Federation of Labor Unions have yet to take positions.

Under California law, proponents had until June 25 to rescind measures that earned enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Negotiations picked up again to remove the measure from the ballot shortly before the deadline. Two sources said Regan’s demands changed and allegedly had nothing to do with raising money to offset federal healthcare cuts.

Sources said Regan said he wanted union contracts with two private hospitals and a health clinic, an organizing neutrality agreement with healthcare clinics statewide, recognition of his union from dialysis clinics and for billionaires to remove measures they launched in response to his tax.

Newsom’s office said they couldn’t force private companies to do anything. The governor’s aides offered an alternative plan to dedicate around $7 billion over several years to healthcare funding in California, which didn’t move Regan.

“There were no negotiations,” Regan said about the billionaire tax.

Days before the deadline to pull the wealth tax measure from the ballot, UHW announced an offer to reduce the billionaire tax from 5% to 2% of net worth that the union said Newsom rejected. Sources said the compromise was first offered in a press release and did not reflect any serious negotiation.

Regan set a goal to add 25,000 new members by this year and has so far added around 8,000, according to the union’s website.

In exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot, sources said one of Regan’s demands was for Newsom’s office to get involved with battles for union contracts at hospitals in Fresno and San Diego and a clinic in the Imperial Valley.

The union is tied up in labor disputes over recent attempts to unionize facilities in two of those places — Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego and Innercare, a community clinic in El Centro.

The dialysis industry became a ballot target for Regan three election cycles in a row as he attempted to unionize its workers.

The battle is on pause after dialysis companies agreed to not oppose a $25 minimum wage increase for healthcare workers and UHW agreed to not target the industry in legislation or ballot measures through the end of this year, but the fight turned DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care into major political donors in state campaigns.

California’s billionaire class is also increasing its presence in state politics.

Billionaires pushed two measures on the November ballot that seek to neutralize the billionaire tax and block new taxes on personal property and assets and require audits of new programs funded with special taxes.

The billionaire tax has also become a national rallying cry for the political left, drawing the high-profile support of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others who are fed up with wealth inequality. Opponents of Proposition 40 have questioned whether any of the solutions Regan proposed would have been enough for him to remove the measure from the ballot and avoid the wrath of progressives who backed the tax.

Sacramento political observers say the unintended consequences of Regan’s tax measure are already reshaping California politics.

“When he did the billionaire tax, all these people who never engaged in politics finally woke up,” said Jim DeBoo, a Democratic consultant and former chief of staff to Newsom. “And they aren’t going away.”

The measure is causing a rift within the SEIU California State Council, an umbrella organization that represents more than 700,000 workers from all SEIU unions including UHW.

The billionaire tax only benefits healthcare. SEIU, which also represents workers in the public sector, nursing homes, child care and other service industries, has become a target of California’s wealthiest new political players despite most of its union members gaining nothing from the measure.

Billionaires and their companies, including Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen, venture capitalist Tim Draper, Google and Meta have spent nearly $30 million on a successful campaign to oppose SEIU-backed progressive candidates or boost moderate Democrats in legislative races. The same donors spent only $50,000 on independent expenditures in legislative races in the entire 2024 election cycle.

Shaudi Fulp, a political strategist working with Larsen and Draper, said a new governor and lawmakers present an opportunity to build fresh governing coalitions around issues that matter most to Californians.

“California is entering a unique moment of transition,” Fulp said.

The billionaires’ strategy is whittling away at SEIU’s influence in the state Legislature, where the state council has historically used its endorsements and army of volunteers to boost progressive candidates aligned with their cause. Moderates backed by billionaires beat nearly every SEIU-endorsed candidate in more than a dozen races in the June primary, with record spending knocking union candidates out of the top two in places such as Bakersfield and Orange County.

The SEIU California State Council declined to comment for this story.

The battle over the billionaire tax is also expected to become the most expensive ballot measure campaign of the election cycle, if not ever. The opposition is poised to exponentially outspend UHW.

“Look, the only thing that stands down a bully is when you punch him in the face,” said Brandon Castillo, a political consultant who has represented healthcare providers against UHW on more than a dozen initiatives. “You can’t sit back and continue to take punches or nothing will change.”

Staff writer Nicole Nixon contributed to this report.

California voters will decide 14 statewide propositions in the Nov. 3 election, measures placed on the ballot mostly by either powerful interest groups or lawmakers that will affect the lives of millions of Californians.

While a proposed tax on state billionaires has dominated headlines, voters will also have a chance to weigh in on a number of consequential issues, from healthcare to voter identification requirements and more.

Californians are accustomed to legislating by the ballot and often face a list of propositions. But even by the standards of the state’s direct democracy process, the 2026 election stands out. The campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures have already collected more than $100 million in contributions, and are expected to use their money to inundate the television airwaves, livestreams and social media feeds and to flood mailboxes with glossy campaign mailers over the coming months.

Here are the measures on the Nov. 3 ballot:

Proposition 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026

Spurred by the state’s affordable housing shortage, state lawmakers are asking voters to approve an $11.25-billion bond to boost affordable housing construction around the state.

Advocates say the funds would help build more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable homes that are unable to move forward because of a financing gap and help preserve thousands of other existing units.

Proposition 1 includes specific funding for high-need groups, including $1.25 billion for a veterans’ home loan program, $1.15 billion for supportive housing for homeless people, $350 million for student housing at state universities, $450 million for farmworker housing and $200 million for Native American tribes.

“In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people — we meet them head-on,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement about the measure. “We are giving voters the power to help shape the future of housing in our state. This bond is about building communities, expanding access and affordability in California, where every family has a fair shot at a place to call home.”

Some Republicans took issue with the measure’s title — “The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026” — arguing that it included veterans to have broader appeal while doing little to actually help homeless veterans.

“It’s a sad thing to say that you have to use the veterans as bait to get the people of the state of California to approve an $11-billion bond, and I just think that’s shameful,” said Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), an Army veteran. “Call it what it is. It’s a homeless bond, and it does include some veterans’ benefits, but it is not a veterans bond.”

Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act

This measure would give California lawmakers more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The measure, supported by Newsom, seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s, and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

The measure could incentivize lawmakers to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that otherwise would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers.

Proposition 3: Fund schools and healthcare

If passed, this proposition would make permanent an existing tax on high-income Californians.

The existing tax, passed by voters in 2012 and extended in 2016, is set to expire in 2031. It applies to people who earn more than $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household. It adds between 1% to 3% to these high earners’ personal income tax rates.

According to the initiative text, the funds are largely earmarked for local school districts and community colleges, with some portion of the money going to California’s rainy day reserves — which the state uses to prevent cuts to healthcare and other services when revenues decline. The measure says revenues cannot be spent on state bureaucracy or administrative costs.

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the measure to bring in between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, depending on how the stock market is performing, with the amount expected to grow over time.

Proposition 4: Public financing of campaigns

This measure would allow the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing to candidates running for elected office. Candidates receiving the funding must abide by expenditure limits and adhere to the criteria set by statute, ordinance or charter to demonstrate broad support, such as demonstrate a large number of small dollar contributions.

None of the public campaign financing can come from funds designated for education, transportation or public safety. The financing cannot discriminate based on party or whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. The public funds cannot be used for legal costs, fines or to pay back personal loans to a campaign.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature and governor.

Proposition 5: Recall elections

This measure would change the way recall elections are conducted in California. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, during a recall election, voters would decide solely whether a politician should be removed from their elected position. If the recall is successful, that office would remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with existing law — either by a separate election or by appointment.

Under current law, voters make two separate decisions during a recall election: Whether to remove the subject of the recall from office and, if they are booted, which candidate running to replace them should fill the position. The candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if they receive far less than 50% of the vote.

The proposed constitutional amendment would also allow the recalled politician to run in the next election to fill the vacancy, though they cannot be appointed to their former post. Under the current system, office holders targeted in a recall are barred from being a candidate to replace themselves in that same election.

The proposal comes in the wake of the unsuccessful, Republican-led recall campaign against Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, which in part tested voter sentiment about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the sponsors of the recall-reform measure was Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who was recalled from office in 2018 after he voted to increase gas taxes for road repairs, legislation pushed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. Newman won back his seat in 2020.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature.

Proposition 37: Homeownership loan program

Proposition 37 would create a down payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a new home.

The measure, spearheaded by former state Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, would allow middle-class California residents — defined as anyone who makes less than 200% of an area’s median income — borrow most of their down payment for a new home that they plan to live in. It is designed to boost construction of single-family homes.

A down payment is traditionally about 20% of the purchase price of a home. If passed, the measure would create a state-administered loan program that offers qualified homebuyers a second mortgage of up to 17% of a home’s sale price.

The proposition would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to administer the program.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not anticipate the measure to result in direct state or local costs because the costs are meant to be covered by homeowners’ mortgage payments.

Proposition 38: Immunology research bond

Proposition 38 asks voters to approve an $8.4-billion bond to support research in the burgeoning fields of immunology and immunotherapy, which study the human immune system and how it can be used to prevent, treat and cure diseases.

If approved, half of the funding would go toward the creation of a new immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would fund research grants for other California-based universities and nonprofit medical research institutions to study potential treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

The measure has a built-in discount program for Californians — it requires that any technology or drugs developed from bond-funded research be sold to California patients for a price at least 20% below the national average.

Backers of the proposal include the Alzheimer’s Assn., National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other healthcare groups. Supporters argue the funding would facilitate research that could save lives and save patients “billions of dollars in health care costs by preventing and curing a range of debilitating diseases and illnesses,” according to the initiative text.

Proposition 39: Voter identification

Proposition 39 would require Californians to show government-issued identification every time they vote at the polls.

Currently, Californians must affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and provide information to verify their identity, such as their birth date, driver’s license or Social Security number, when registering to vote, but they don’t have to present identification when they cast their ballot.

Under this measure, voters would also need to present government-issued ID each time they vote in-person at the polls or, if voting by mail, provide the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from government-issued identification” that matches the one they provided when they registered to vote. California would be required to provide free voter ID cards on request, and state and county election officials would be required to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens by using government data.

The voter ID measure has support from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who has framed it as necessary to prevent voter fraud and restore trust. It comes as President Trump is pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and severe limits on voting by mail.

Democrats and voting rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose the measure, saying California’s elections are already secure — voter impersonation and noncitizen voting cases are rare — and that it would make voting harder for many eligible voters, including people who have changed names, move frequently or face housing instability.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure would make election administration more expensive, costing state and local governments anywhere from tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, plus tens of millions in upfront implementation costs.

Proposition 40: Billionaire tax

This proposition, supported by a healthcare worker union, would impose a one-time tax of 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion.

According to a state-prepared summary of the measure, 90% of the tax revenues would be spent on healthcare and 10% would fund food assistance or education-related programs. California’s richest residents would be able to spread the payments over five years.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would generate “tens of billions of dollars” spread over several years, but would lead to an annual decrease in state income tax revenues of “hundreds of millions of dollars or more.”

Newsom has publicly opposed the tax, arguing it would lead wealthy residents to leave the state and lead to future budget problems. Other opponents include Planned Parenthood, the California School Boards Assn. and a nonprofit called Building a Better California that is backed by tech execs and venture capitalists.

Some billionaires have already proactively moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposal, which as written would retroactively apply to residents of the state as of Jan. 1.

Proposition 41: Requires limits and audits on new state special taxes

This is one of two ballot measures crafted by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a new tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect undercut or curtail that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would also prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from the state’s current voter-approved spending limit. The proposed billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax measure would be voided.

The measure would require the state auditor to conduct a financial and performance audit of proposed ballot initiatives and of the programs they fund. The measure would require audits of any program that would receive funding from the special tax in the proposed initiative to assess the efficiency of the program and recommend who ought to reduce its annual costs by 10%. If the measure passes, the costs of the audits would be paid via the revenues generated by the special tax.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 42: Ban on new state personal property taxes

This is one of two ballot measures created by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect void that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.

If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax ballot measure would be voided.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 43: Voting thresholds for special taxes

The measure would prohibit local governments from imposing new special taxes unless the proposed tax receives approval from two-thirds of voters. The restriction also applies to citizen initiatives, which currently only need a simple majority vote to be approved.

It would also limit cities’ ability to impose taxes on property sales. In charter cities, the measure would prevent voters from approving any real estate transfer taxes beyond the state’s existing rate of 0.11% of a property’s sale price. It would also cancel some existing property-related taxes.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. supports Proposition 43. The advocacy group has characterized the measure as an effort to “save” 1978’s Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that capped California property tax increases and required a super-majority of votes to approve most future tax increases.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

“I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law — but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out,” Wicks posted on social media.

Proposition 44: Regulate health clinic spending

If passed, Proposition 44 would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose” rather than management and overhead. Community clinics that fail to comply would be penalized, with fines placed in a state-managed fund to be spent on clinic workforce programs.

Advocates say clinics spend too much on executive pay and other administrative costs and not enough on patient care. The measure, which would dictate how clinics spend money, is designed to fix that. The measure is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, an influential healthcare workers union, which argues it will help hold clinics accountable.

In May, the California Primary Care Assn., which represents more than 2,300 community health clinics, sued to block the ballot measure. The state’s powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Assn., also opposes the measure, arguing it would ban clinics from keeping funding in reserves and hamper their ability to upgrade equipment or expand to new locations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that enforcing the measure would cost the government up to the low tens of millions annually, and that much of the cost would be paid for through penalties and fees charged to affected clinics. The office says the measure has “uncertain” impacts and could lead to clinic closures.

Proposition 45: CEQA reform

This proposition would amend the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and speed up the process for projects deemed “essential,” including certain housing, water, health, public safety, energy and transportation projects.

Jails, detention facilities and oil or natural gas production facilities would not be considered “essential” projects, according to the measure text.

If passed, the measure would set deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review, allow expedited review of a project’s environmental impacts — currently, public agencies are required to consider a range of feasible alternatives to reduce environmental impacts — and establish deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits.

CEQA lawsuits have often been used to block construction of housing in the state. For instance, in Berkeley, neighbors used CEQA — citing potential noise impact from partying students — to delay, for years, UC Berkeley’s construction of student dorms on People’s Park.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state and local government implementation will cost in the tens of millions of dollars for the first several years. It notes the legislation would probably result in net savings in the long term due to reduced administrative and legal workload.

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Reporting from Sacramento — Proposition 10, a ballot measure to expand rent control in California, was decisively rejected by voters Tuesday in a victory for the state’s top landlords who spent millions to defeat it.

The campaign was one of the most expensive initiative battles in California history with more than $104 million in total fundraising. With Proposition 10’s failure, a statewide ban on most new forms of rent control remains in effect.

“The stunning margin of victory shows California voters clearly understood the negative impacts Prop. 10 would have on the availability of affordable and middle-class housing in our state,” Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Assn., said in a statement.

It’s expensive to be a tenant in California. Will Proposition 10’s rent control expansion help? »

The campaign to expand rent control was pitched to voters as housing has become less affordable in the state. About 9.5 million renters — more than half of California’s tenant population — are burdened by high rents, spending at least 30% of their income on housing costs, according to a UC Berkeley study.

To address the issue, tenant advocates decided to go after the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state law passed 23 years ago that blocks cities and counties from imposing rent control on single-family homes and apartments built after 1995, among other prohibitions. After a bill to repeal Costa-Hawkins failed in a legislative committee in January, groups turned in signatures for a ballot measure, Proposition 10, that would have done the same thing. Had the initiative passed, local governments would have been free to add new restrictions on rents, something Los Angeles, Berkeley and other cities were considering.

But polling showed Proposition 10 never really caught on with voters. A September survey from the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California revealed just 36% of likely voters backed the initiative. A month later a poll from the same organization showed support had decreased to 25%.

That drop came amid a blitz of TV advertisements from opponents who, as of Friday, had raised nearly $80 million to defeat Proposition 10. They argued that expanding rent control would increase the state’s housing shortage, exacerbate overall affordability issues and hurt the investments of single-family homeowners. Much of the funding for the No on 10 campaign came from national real estate investors with large apartment portfolios in California.

The Proposition 10 campaign was watched beyond California’s borders. Market analysts have paid close attention to the campaign, which had the potential to spur similar rent control measures across the country. The National Multifamily Housing Council, an apartment industry group, called Proposition 10 an “existential threat to the industry.”

Supporters of Proposition 10 raised $24.6 million, 94% of it coming from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit. Backers contended that the initiative offered the quickest and cheapest way to provide housing cost relief for renters, and that cities and counties should be allowed to tailor rent stabilization rules to their communities.

Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said the campaign revealed the influence that corporate landlords have over the state’s housing market.

“They may be enjoying their victory at the polls tonight,” Weinstein said. “But this campaign exposed who they are and what they represent.”

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has argued that housing stability is crucial to its mission of serving low-income AIDS patients, now has lost four high-profile California and Los Angeles ballot measures it’s bankrolled since 2016. Voters have also rejected statewide efforts to limit prescription drug prices and mandate the use of condoms in adult films and a Los Angeles measure to slow growth in the city.

Despite Proposition 10’s defeat, rent control is likely to remain in the spotlight. Residents in Sacramento, the state’s sixth-largest city, have qualified a 2020 initiative that would implement rent controls on the city’s older apartment buildings. Democrat Gavin Newsom, who was elected governor on Tuesday, opposed Proposition 10, but he has said the state should have stronger protections for tenants.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation officials have said that if Proposition 10 didn’t pass they would immediately begin discussing whether to push a stronger rent control measure for the 2020 statewide ballot. After the results came in Tuesday night, Weinstein said he wanted to work with Newsom first.

“Gavin Newsom, who is the incoming governor of California, has said affirmatively that he intends to solve this problem. I take that at face value. It’s incumbent upon us to exhaust that opportunity before we go to the ballot again.”

Coverage of California politics »

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

UPDATES:

11:45 p.m.: This article was updated with quotes from an interview with Michael Weinstein, which replaced written statements from Proposition 10 supporters.

10:12 p.m.: This article was updated with a quote from Proposition 10 proponents.

This article was originally published at 9:45 p.m.

California Democrats made it out of last week’s primary election having kept the promise of Proposition 50 alive — advancing candidates to November runoffs in all five Republican-held Congressional districts that last year’s redistricting measure targeted.

They now head into November bullish about turning those districts blue, wresting control of the U.S. House from Republicans and delivering their party important leverage to challenge President Trump through the remainder of his second term.

“As Democrats, we are united in our fight to flip this seat and to take back the House for Democrats here in ‘26,” progressive college professor Randy Villegas told The Times on Wednesday after besting his Democratic challenger to advance and take on Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the redrawn 22nd Congressional District. “We know the path to taking back the House runs through the Central Valley.”

Robert Jones, a Valadao campaign strategist, said Valadao “is always humbled to receive the support of Democrats, independents and Republicans across the Central Valley,” and that his “brand of independent, bipartisan leadership is all too rare in Congress and California.”

“We look forward to a campaign that puts the Central Valley ahead of any political party and wins again in November,” Jones said.

In a social media post Wednesday, former state Sen. Richard Pan, who advanced in the redrawn 6th Congressional District in the Sacramento suburbs to take on Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin), cheered his race being added to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Red to Blue” program highlighting winnable seats. He said his race is “one of the top chances to flip a House seat and take back the majority.”

Kiley did not respond to a request for comment, but wrote on X that the November race between him and Pan “will be a choice between the extreme partisan policies that have made California the most unaffordable state in the country, and the independent leadership that allows our local communities to thrive in spite of the state’s failures.”

The two races are considered among the most competitive in California in November, but primary results to date show substantial momentum in the Democrats’ favor, experts said.

In the 22nd Congressional District race, Valadao had received substantially less than half of the vote as of Wednesday, while Villegas and his Democratic rival, moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano), had together received well over half the vote.

In the 6th Congressional District race, Kiley and the leading Republican candidate had together received well under half the vote as of Wednesday, while Pan and four other Democratic candidates had collectively won well over half the vote.

Those results are not final, nor do they necessarily reflect how voters will break in November’s head-to-head competitions. Just because a voter cast a ballot for a Democrat or Republican in the primary doesn’t mean they will back another candidate of the same party or partisan alignment in the general, experts said.

Still, the Democratic candidates clearly have an advantage in a year when the electorate — facing high gas prices and other economic headwinds — appear to be shifting against the president’s party, said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant in the state.

“We’re in an anti-Republican moment,” Madrid said. “Is there time to turn it around? I guess. But there’s also time for it to get worse — and that’s the way it seems to be heading.”

Bob Shrum, a longtime Democratic strategist and director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future at USC, said Democrats stand to perform even better in November based on historical trends that show much larger Democratic turnout in general elections.

“I would not be surprised if Democrats won all five targeted seats, and the primary certainly increases the possibility that happens when you look at the results,” he said. “Maybe one of these places will surprise us, but right now, just looking at the numbers, I don’t think Republicans are in good shape.”

In the redrawn 1st Congressional District in Northern California, where incumbent Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale) died in January, Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher handily won a special election — using the old district lines — for the remainder of LaMalfa’s term.

However, in the primary race for the next full term using the newly drawn district, state Sen. Mike McGuire and other Democrats collectively outperformed Gallagher by a substantial margin as of Wednesday — giving McGuire the momentum heading into the November runoff with Gallagher.

In the redrawn 41st Congressional District in Los Angeles and Riverside counties, Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Whittier) and Republican Mitch Clemmons advanced. As of Wednesday, Sánchez and her fellow Democratic candidates had collectively outperformed Clemmons by a wide margin.

In the redrawn 48th Congressional District in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) retired rather than run for reelection, moderate Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond advanced alongside Democratic San Diego Councilwoman Marni von Wilpert. Results as of Wednesday showed Von Wilpert and other Democrats in the race collectively outpacing Desmond and the other Republican in the race.

Republicans have long held on to hope that Valadao might be able to hold on to his San Joaquin Valley district, spoiling Democratic hopes for a flip there. They also seemed buoyed by early results in the Kiley race. But neither race went as Republicans hoped — and both Kiley and Valadao face a tough road ahead, experts said.

Having abandoned the Republican Party to run as an independent in a district that was designed to favor a Democrat, Kiley “now has to work all three lanes,” Madrid said. “He has to get a consolidation of the Republican vote, he has to communicate directly to independents, and he’s going to have to get crossover Democrats.”

That’ll be extremely difficult, especially given that any move he makes back toward Trump, to woo Republican voters, risks alienating moderate voters he also needs to win, Madrid said.

Shrum blamed Trump for the difficult spot in which the GOP now finds itself, referring to the president calling on Texas Republicans to redistrict in favor of Republicans.

“These California Republicans are paying the price for Trump starting this mess in Texas,” Shrum said.

“Kiley in his old district probably would have been easily reelected. This new district is a whole different story.”

Shrum also said it “doesn’t look good” for Valadao, despite the political argument picked up by GOP leaders that Villegas is too progressive for the Central Valley.

“Randy Villegas endorses every far-left policy that would destroy any hope for Central Valley residents looking for relief from Gavin Newsom’s high-tax, high-fraud system,” Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters said in a recent statement.

Shrum said he doubts that message will resonate with enough voters to sway the race to Valadao “in an environment where the things people are worried about are the cost of living, the war.”

Madrid had even less confidence in a Valadao victory, saying that “in an environment like this, a tree stump could beat Valadao” given how frustrated voters are with the economy and the president’s party.

Villegas, who racked up endorsements Wednesday from a raft of Democratic leaders in the state, said the district’s primary results were “rooted in the reality that Central Valley residents are fed up with David Valadao” — not just Trump — and want a change.

Reporting from Sacramento — Paul Taybi is part of the 1.5%.

The 59-year-old retired founder of a data analysis company from El Cerrito is among that percentage of the wealthiest Californians paying the higher income tax rates that voters approved four years ago.

Now, with those rates set to expire, a coalition of teacher and service worker unions, medical groups and others are pushing Proposition 55, a ballot measure that would extend these higher taxes on the the highest earners through 2030.

Taybi isn’t happy about it. He said he plans to raise rents in the four Bay Area properties his family owns and ultimately move out of state in the coming years if the measure passes.

“I have no problem paying more taxes than a poor person does,” Taybi said. “But we’ve reached the point where my behavior has changed. It will change more. And a lot of people like me will say, ‘That’s the straw that broke the camel’s back.’”

If voters approve Proposition 55, the state will continue depending on Taybi and other wealthy Californians to fund a significant portion of schools, parks, road repairs, police, prisons and many other government services. Those paying the higher rates, which kick in for single and joint filers making more than $263,000 and $526,000 a year respectively, contributed almost $34 billion in income taxes in 2014, roughly a third of all state general fund revenue.

California’s reliance on the wealthiest taxpayers means the state is especially vulnerable to their bottom lines.

When presenting this year’s revised budget plan in May, Gov. Jerry Brown carried with him a chart titled, “Unpredictable Capital Gains,” noting how the state’s revenues were highly dependent on booms and busts in the economy. California’s finances, he said, are a “zig-zag reality.”

“In order to manage this budget,” Brown said, “it’s like riding a tiger.”

In the same presentation, Brown estimated that if Proposition 55 didn’t pass, the state would have a budget deficit in the next three years, which could lead to a new round of cuts in education, health and social services programs.

Updates from Sacramento »

Though much more muted than before, the basic message is the same as it was in 2012.

Back then, the state remained at the height of a prolonged budget crisis. Brown and other proponents warned of massive cuts unless voters passed Proposition 30. The measure primarily raised income tax rates by 1% to 3% for the wealthiest taxpayers.

Under Proposition 30, the current tax rate is 10.3% for single filers earning between $263,000 and $316,000 in annual taxable income, 11.3% for those between $316,000 and $526,000, 12.3% for those between $526,000 and $1 million and 13.3% for those earning $1 million or more. The final 1% at the highest tax rate goes toward a mental-health fund that’s been recently retooled to pay for a $2-billion bond to help house the homeless.

Brown and other supporters pitched Proposition 30 as a Band-aid to carry the state through the worst of its financial calamities. Those higher income tax rates are set to expire in 2018. If Proposition 55 passes, the higher rates would be in place for 18 years.

The governor hasn’t taken a formal position on Proposition 55 and maintains he could balance the budget with or without it.

“I said it was temporary when I started, when I got Prop. 30 passed — I helped to pass it — and I think I’ll leave it there,” Brown said at the May budget presentation.

Some high earners who voted for Proposition 30 now say they’re opposed to the new measure because they were promised that the tax hikes would expire.

“I’m just incensed because I feel like a sucker,” said Martin Schwartz, 63, an electronics repair store owner in Chatsworth, who has paid the higher rates.

But supporters of the measure argue that the state’s still shaky revenues justify continuing to tax those in the top income brackets at higher rates.

“Have we stopped bleeding since 2012? Yes, but the problem still exists,” said Shay Lohman, president of the teacher’s union in the Rowland Unified School District in Los Angeles County. “The wound is still there.”

Increased tax revenues have also brought significant benefits. Since Proposition 30 passed, Lohman’s district brought back an elementary school music program that had been cut during the recession and is planning to start a dual-language Mandarin-English program next year, he said.

“Money has allowed something like that to happen,” Lohman said.

Though the income tax provisions are the same, Proposition 55 has some differences from Proposition 30. The new initiative does not extend a quarter-cent sales tax hike set to expire at the end of the year. It directs more of the money to the state’s Medi-Cal healthcare program for low-income residents. The measure will raise $4 billion to $9 billion a year, depending on the economy and stock market, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

The campaigns for Propositions 30 and 55 are different as well. Four years ago, business and taxpayer groups mounted a robust effort, spending millions, including running television advertisements, to oppose the tax and support a second, unrelated ballot measure.

This time, opponents have only raised $3,000, according to the state campaign finance reports, while supporters have collected almost $53 million, primarily from the California Assn. of Hospitals and California Teachers Assn.

In pro-Proposition 55 television advertisements, advocates including state Controller Betty Yee argue the measure will prevent education cuts without raising taxes.

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll last month found 57% of registered voters were in favor of the measure. The poll even found support from a majority of those making more than $100,000 a year.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Follow me at @dillonliam on Twitter

ALSO

Can Gov. Jerry Brown keep the promises he made with Proposition 30?

Gov. Jerry Brown sends lawmakers revised California budget with less money to spend on new programs

Voters will likely be asked for 12 more years of higher income taxes on the wealthy

With less than two weeks before the primary election, Steve Hilton is leading in the polls for governor, and Los Angeles mayoral hopeful Spencer Pratt is making the city’s progressive class sweat.

If the former Fox News commentator and the reality television bad boy move on to November’s general election, they’ll be running as conservatives in a super-blue state and city where most voters loathe President Trump.

The president endorsed Hilton last month, posting on social media that he “is a truly fine man, one who has watched as this once great State has gone to Hell.” On Wednesday, Trump said he wants Pratt to “do well … I heard he’s a big MAGA person,” before claiming that California elections are rigged and that he would have won the state two years ago “if we had Jesus Christ come down and count the votes” because “I do great with Hispanics.”

Trump was right about one thing — the importance of Latino voters. If Hilton and Pratt are to pull off historic upsets, they’ll need this bloc, which has emerged as a mercurial swing vote in local, state and national elections — but only if stirred into action by anger. And if ever there was a year for Latino anger, 2026 is it.

In recent years, Latinos in California have drifted rightward as they tire of Democratic policies, from L.A. City Hall to Sacramento. Rick Caruso captured a majority of the Latino vote in his unsuccessful bid for L.A. mayor four years ago, and there are more Latino Republicans in the state legislature than ever. Some of the most Latino areas in Southern California saw the biggest shifts toward Trump from 2020 to 2024.

Hilton has held town halls in small, Latino-majority cities across a state that’s about 41% Latino. He frequently appears alongside lieutenant governor candidate Gloria Romero, a pioneer in challenging disaffected Latinos to not always vote Democrat.

Pratt has shared AI-generated salsa and merengue songs that hail him as a savior and uses Spanglish when referring to Mayor Karen Bass as “Basura” — trash. He’s starting to roll out endorsements from Latino business groups and held a block party in South L.A. this week for which a Instagram post tried to draw supporters with the promise of a taco truck.

So if the candidates know that Latinos are essential to their long-shot campaigns, why the hell aren’t they running as far and fast from Trump as possible?

Two years ago, Trump — the most anti-Latino president since James Polk — grabbed a larger share of the Latino electorate than any Republican presidential candidate ever had. GOP leaders predicted that Latinos were finally theirs. But Trump annihilated that advantage by launching his deportation deluge. Now, he has turned off even some die-hard supporters by starting a war in Iran, which has further strained an already shaky economy.

Trump annihilated the advantage the GOP had with Latinos by launching his deportation deluge.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

A New York Times/Siena poll released this month found that only 20% of Latinos support Trump — the lowest during his two terms. A Pew Research Center survey, meanwhile, found that only 66% of Latinos who voted for Trump now approve of him, compared to 81% of white Trump supporters.

Instead of running away, Hilton and Pratt seem fine with hitching their prospects to this political Titanic.

Hilton sought and received Trump’s endorsement, arguing that it’s better to have a friendly relationship with the White House than the antagonistic path California’s elected leaders have chosen.

But most voters want no part of Hilton’s kumbaya. Proposition 50, a direct rebuke of Trump’s gerrymandering efforts in other states, passed with more than two-thirds of the vote last fall. A CalMatters analysis found that Latino-majority precincts voted in bigger numbers for the ballot initiative than for Kamala Harris two years earlier.

Hilton can promise Latinos his “Califordable” agenda and eat all the tacos he wants. But our economic malaise was caused in large part by Trump, who recently said he thinks about Americans’ financial struggles “not even a little bit.”

For Hilton not to decry such cluelessness is almost as ridiculous as his recent boasts that he — the British son of Hungarian refugees who became a U.S. citizen just five years ago — is the candidate of “legal” immigrants. That’s a callback to the days of Proposition 187, when Republicans obsessed with the state’s changing demographics turned off my generation of Latinos by demonizing our undocumented friends and family. The GOP was finally starting to emerge from the political wilderness with Latinos, but Hilton cozying up to Trump will drag the party back into that weak salsa place.

Pratt has been coyer on his thoughts about Trump, but at least he seems to realize that the president might be a liability. The Republican said his party affiliation doesn’t since the mayor’s race is nonpartisan. He has portrayed himself as focused solely on improving Los Angeles, telling CBS News, “I don’t do national politics. I don’t do tribal politics.”

But for someone who says he wants to make L.A. a world-class city, Pratt seems unconcerned about Trump’s assault on us, including last summer’s unchecked immigration raids and temporary occupation by the Marines and the National Guard. Rather than denounce those moves, Pratt has instead denounced L.A.’s sanctuary city ordinance and vowed to work with ICE and other federal immigration agencies to target bad hombres if he becomes mayor, even though a majority of those rounded up in the raids had no criminal history.

It’s as if Pratt’s understanding of Latino L.A. ends with an Erewhon burrito. He continually platforms supporters who portray L.A. as a multicultural wasteland. And when another mayoral candidate, City Councilmember Nithya Raman, posted Trump’s praise of Pratt on social media, he responded with a snippet of himself making a dismissive face during a debate.

But this is nothing to dismiss. For Pratt and Hilton to win, they need Latinos to believe in them. And why would we believe anyone who hitches their wagon, even a little, to Trump?