Vote Alix

This ballot is so long, I’ve decided to publish my endorsements in bite-size chunks. Here are my thoughts about Propositions 1 through 5 on the November 2026 California ballot.

You can find my endorsements on Props 40, 41 and 42 here. My thoughts on the candidate races are here. Props 37-39 and 43-45 coming soon.

The short version, for those of you reading this while pretending to listen on a Zoom call:

• Prop 1 (The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond): YES
• Prop 2 (Bigger Rainy-Day Fund): YES
• Prop 3 (The Temporary Tax That Wants Tenure): YES
• Prop 4 (Lift the Ban on Public Campaign Financing): YES
• Prop 5 (Fix the Recall): YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES

Disclaimers

Before we begin, I should clarify that the opinions I express in my voter guides are my own and should not be attributed to my clients, my little girl, or my subversive artist collective. Please send all hate mail to me at info (at) votealix.com.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a single mom, a liberal Democrat, and an attorney whose passions include making government work better, helping professionals lead healthier lives, and protecting our environment for future generations. I’ve worked on/volunteered for more political campaigns than I can count, and I also like long walks on the beach.

Prop 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond. YES.

Once upon a time, California had redevelopment agencies, and those agencies had to set aside a share of their money for low-income housing, more than a billion dollars a year. Then in 2012, in the middle of a budget crisis, the Legislature killed redevelopment and never replaced the housing money. Since then, California has paid for affordable housing the way a college kid pays for spring break: sporadically, in lump sums, and on credit. Prop 1 is the latest trip to the ATM.

What it actually does: Prop 1 lets the state borrow $11.25 billion. Here’s where the money goes:

• $7.2 billion to the Multifamily Housing Program, the state’s main low-cost loan program for affordable rentals. Of that, $1.15 billion is for supportive housing for people leaving or at risk of homelessness (including $150 million for homeless and foster youth), and $750 million is for fixing up existing affordable housing.
• $1.25 billion for CalVet home loans
• $600 million to local agencies and nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity to help first-time buyers build or finance homes
• $500 million for down-payment assistance
• $500 million for infrastructure like water and sewer lines
• $450 million for farmworker housing
• $350 million for student housing, split evenly between UC and CSU
• $200 million for tribal housing
• $200 million for local pilots that “demonstrate innovative, cost-saving approaches”

The Chronicle calls this “a dizzying array of priorities” and “the product of years of legislative sausage-making,” which is the most accurate description of a California bond I have ever read. Everyone who helped build the coalition got a bucket.

“No new taxes” is the campaign slogan, and it’s technically true, the way “no new calories” is technically true of a loan to buy a cake. We pay it back at $500 to $600 million a year out of the General Fund for about 25 years. The exception is the veterans slice, which veterans repay through their mortgages.

The Legislative Analyst says this would subsidize up to 40,000 affordable apartments plus farmworker units, student beds, and homebuying help for up to 40,000 households. The state says we need at least a million new affordable homes by 2031. So this won’t come close to solving the housing crisis. It’s gap financing for housing that nobody builds without it.

The history: Prop 1 comes from the Legislature, not from anyone’s signature-gathering war chest.

We’ve done this kind of bond before, most recently with a $4 billion bond in 2018 ($3 billion for housing, $1 billion for veterans’ loans). The good news: the money actually built housing, and it pulled in a lot of other money with it. In one recent round, every state dollar brought in about $6.72 in outside financing. The bad news: the state can’t actually tell you how many homes $3 billion bought. The State Auditor found that California doesn’t even have a single dataset tracking the affordable units it funds. The auditor has spent years asking the Legislature to require better public reporting, and the Legislature has spent years not doing it.

The case against Prop 1:

The opposition has no campaign, and nobody even bothered to submit a ballot argument. So I’ll make their case for them:

• Borrowing doesn’t fix the cost problem. Affordable units cost $380,000 to $570,000 to build, and some Bay Area projects hit $1 million. Critics say we should drive costs down instead of borrowing billions to subsidize expensive buildings that barely make a dent.
• Bonds are pricey. Borrowing makes this about 15% more expensive than paying cash, and it lands just as the state is projecting years of deficits.
• The veterans branding is a costume. Veterans only get about 11 percent of the money.
• Nobody’s fixing the leaky roofs. Rents in 100% affordable buildings don’t cover upkeep, so a lot of existing affordable housing is falling apart. Prop 1 sets aside only $750 million for rehab, which even the Chronicle calls “a relative pittance.”

Opponents: Republican legislators, the California Policy Center, and Reform California.

The case for Prop 1:

• The line is out the door. Every dollar of the 2018 bond was committed by 2023. Tens of thousands of permitted affordable homes are stalled because they are waiting for funding.
• The leverage is better than ever. State money is the gap filler that unlocks federal tax credits. Congress loosened those rules in 2025 in a way the LAO says could as much as double California’s access to one of the main programs. Federal money is on the table, and this is how we pick it up.
• The “fix the rules first” crowd got their wish. California has since exempted infill housing from CEQA review, streamlined dense housing near transit, and started consolidating its maze of financing applications, which could cut $60,000 to $70,000 per unit. Projects that can finally get approved now need capital to get built.

Supporters: Gov. Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the California Apartment Association, the California AFL-CIO, the California Federation of Teachers, US Vets, Habitat for Humanity California, and a coalition of affordable housing developers, the Carpenters union, and tech donors. It’s the usual housing coalition: builders, labor, and billionaires who would like their baristas to live within 90 minutes of the café.

The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board endorsed it, with reservations:

The housing debate in California often feels a bit like fighting with your rambling uncle during Thanksgiving dinner. But there’s generally one island of universal agreement in a sea of rage: the need for more affordable housing.

San Francisco Chronicle editorial board

Why I’m voting yes: I’m voting yes, and I’m a little annoyed about it. I’m annoyed that the state can’t tell me what it bought with the last $3 billion. But the evidence we have says these programs do what they’re supposed to do, the demand is enormous, and the timing is good. The alternative to borrowing isn’t some leaner, smarter housing program that nobody has proposed. The alternative is nothing, and permitted projects sit in a drawer while rents go up.

So vote yes. Then call your legislator about two things. First, pass the reporting requirements the State Auditor keeps asking for. If we’re putting $10 billion on the credit card, we should get to read the statement. Second, do what Assemblymember Buffy Wicks says needs doing: create “sustained ongoing funding for affordable housing so that we’re not having to have this bond conversation every six years.” We had that once. It was called redevelopment.

Prop 2: Bigger Rainy-Day Fund. YES.

Oh man. I LOVE this stuff, and this one still made my eyes glaze over. I’ll keep it short to save you the suffering.

What it does: Prop 2 doubles the target for California’s rainy-day fund, from 10% to 20% of state taxes. It makes the state save more in boom years, and it requires extra debt payments for ten more years.

Why we’re voting on this: California’s budget is a roller coaster. When Silicon Valley is booming, Sacramento is swimming in cash. When the market tanks, the money vanishes. In just a few years we went from a roughly $100 billion surplus to a roughly $50 billion deficit. Sacramento keeps treating windfalls like permanent raises, then cutting programs when the boom ends. Prop 2 makes the state save more of the windfall.

And a big one is coming. SpaceX, OpenAI and Anthropic are all headed to Wall Street, and the state’s own budget officials say the tax revenue will dwarf Facebook’s IPO. They also warn that it’s mostly one-time money. That’s exactly the kind of cash Sacramento loves to spend like it’ll last forever. Prop 2 says: Let’s lock some of it away instead.

The catch: In 1979, voters capped how fast state spending can grow. It’s called the Gann Limit. When revenue blows past the cap, the extra goes to schools and taxpayer rebates. Right now, money the state puts into savings counts against that cap. Prop 2 says savings don’t count until the state actually spends them.

Opponents say that’s a loophole that will cancel your tax rebate. That’s just silly. California has sent out exactly one Gann rebate check, in 1987. Deukmejian was governor, the state blew past the limit by $1.1 billion, and every taxpayer got somewhere between $64 and $236. Prop 2 does make the next Gann rebate a little less likely. I’m OK with that.

Who’s on each side: Supporters include Governor Newsom, legislators from both parties, firefighters, hospitals, educators and the Chamber of Commerce. Turns out nobody likes whiplash. Opponents include Republican legislators and Republican Carl DeMaio of Reform California, who has appeared in my voter guides before for opposing other spending measures.

My take: If your family skips a savings deposit because someone lost a job, that doesn’t mean emergency funds are a bad idea. It means you wish you’d saved more before the crisis. That’s exactly what Prop 2 is for.

And when the budget crashes, it’s not billionaires who get hurt. It’s people on Medi-Cal, kids in public schools and families who rely on food assistance. With Washington gutting the safety net, a bigger cushion matters more than ever.

As for the Gann Limit, it’s a Prop 13-era relic. I won’t cry over it.

The AI money is coming either way. The only question is whether we save it.

Vote yes.

Prop 3: The Temporary Tax That Wants Tenure. YES.

What it does: Prop 3 takes the “temporary” income tax on California’s top 2 percent, which has been temporary since “Gangnam Style” was on the radio, and makes it permanent. Nobody’s taxes go up. The current rates just never expire. An extra 1, 2, or 3 percent kicks in at about $371,000 for single filers, $742,000 for married couples, and $505,000 for heads of household. If those numbers made you laugh out loud, this tax is not about you.

Despite the name, the “Children’s Education & Health Care Protection Act” sends only about 40 percent of the money to schools. The rest goes into the General Fund, which is Sacramento for “wherever.” A No vote doesn’t cut anyone’s taxes. The rates would expire in 2031, as voters were originally promised.

The backstory: This is the third movie in the franchise. In Prop 30 (2012), California is broke, and voters approve a temporary tax to get through the crisis. In Prop 55 (2016), the crisis is over but the tax is still here, so voters extend it. In Prop 3 (2026), the tax decides it lives here now.

The California Teachers Association put this on the ballot. As of early October, the Yes side had raised more than $46 million, mostly from teachers’ unions. The No side had raised $5,500. CTA is spending $46 million to beat almost nobody. That’s what a first-year California teacher would earn in more than 700 years.

Supporters: Teachers’ unions, the rest of organized labor, the PTA, and the League of Women Voters. The San Francisco Chronicle’s endorsement is the most revealing. It opposed the 2016 extension, hoping that killing the tax would force real tax reform. Its (defeatist) update ten years later:

That didn’t happen.

San Francisco Chronicle editorial board

Opponents: The California Taxpayers Association and a couple of business groups, with almost no campaign money. Their best point is fair: we were told this tax was temporary, twice. Their slogan is “Fix spending first before making taxes permanent,” a sentence that has been said in Sacramento many times and followed there never.

My take: I’m voting yes, though I’m holding my nose.

The case for yes is solid. It’s not a tax increase, nobody has a plan to replace $5 to $15 billion a year, and voters have approved it twice already. A tax that has been “temporary” for two decades is just a tax.

My complaint is a nerdy one. These tax brackets are in the state Constitution. California’s regular income-tax rates are in ordinary law, where legislators can change them. These ended up in the Constitution more or less by accident, because Prop 30 was a constitutional amendment for unrelated reasons, and Prop 3 makes that permanent. California’s Constitution is already a junk drawer. This leaves three tax brackets in it forever, next to the dead batteries and the takeout menu from 1978. If we ever attempt real tax reform, the Legislature won’t be able to touch these rates without another statewide vote. Ugh.

So why yes? A No vote wouldn’t hurt schools until 2031, and in theory the Legislature could use that time to fix things. In practice, the Chronicle already tested “vote no to force reform,” and we have the results. I’m not betting the schools on a better outcome this time.

But CTA, if you’re reading: take the brackets out of the Constitution next time. You have the signatures for it.

Vote yes.

Prop 4: Lift the Ban on Public Campaign Financing. YES.

Prop 4 is a good-government measure backed by the California Democratic Party, labor unions, civil rights organizations, environmental groups, and every good-government nerd in the state. The only organized opposition comes from the anti-tax crowd, and neither side is spending real money on it. It’s not very controversial, so I’ll cut to the chase: it lifts a 38-year-old ban that stops California from even considering public financing of campaigns.

What it does: Prop 4 doesn’t publicly finance a single campaign. It repeals the ban and lets the Legislature, counties, and cities decide for themselves whether to create a program. If they create one, candidates have to show real community support before they get public money and accept spending limits once they do, and no program can favor incumbents or any party.

My story: In 2006 I ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, my first race, and raising money was by far the hardest part. Incumbents are experienced fundraisers with donor lists and relationships, and that advantage has nothing to do with who would do the job better. San Francisco’s public financing program gave me a fighting chance once I’d shown enough support from inside my district. In the end, I got almost 30 percent of the vote against a powerful, well-funded incumbent. That’s what public financing does: it gets first-time candidates in the door.

The backstory: Voters banned public financing in 1988 with Prop 73. Courts later exempted charter cities, which is why San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Long Beach have programs and nobody else can. The Legislature tried to repeal the ban in 2016, but a court said that since voters enacted it, only voters can undo it. California is the only state with a blanket ban like this.

Supporters: League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, ACLU California Action, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, and the California Democratic Party.

This is about leveling the playing field, empowering everyday voters and opening the door for more diverse voices in public office.

Sen. Tom Umberg, author of Prop 4

Opponents: People who hate taxes generally: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Taxpayers Association, and Reform California.

My take: The best counterargument comes from GrowSF, whose analysis found that San Francisco’s richer 6:1 match cost taxpayers $8.8 million in 2024 without making races more competitive. That’s a fair hit, and a badly designed program can be an expensive subsidy that changes nothing. But it’s an argument about how to design a program, not about whether anyone should be allowed to have one. Prop 4 sends that debate back to the Legislature and local governments, which is where it belongs. Fundraising is the moat around every incumbent in California, and public financing is one of the few ways a first-timer can get across it.

Vote yes.

Prop 5: Fix the Recall. YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES.

Remember the Schwarzenegger election?

In 2003, voters recalled Gov. Gray Davis, and on that same ballot we picked his replacement from 135 candidates. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Arianna Huffington, Gary Coleman, Larry Flynt, and a sumo wrestler, all in one race. Arnold announced his candidacy on The Tonight Show and skipped the policy questions.

As an elections nerd, I want to kiss whoever wrote this measure, because Prop 5 makes that circus impossible.

What it does: Today, a recall ballot asks two questions: Should this official be recalled? And if so, who replaces them? The top vote-getter on the second question wins, majority or not. That setup makes the recall a handy political tool. If you can’t beat an incumbent in a regular election, you can gather signatures, force a recall, and hope to win a crowded replacement race with a fraction of the vote. And if you’re a celebrity, it’s even better: you skip the primary, the debates, and months of scrutiny, and run on name recognition alone. That’s how Schwarzenegger became governor in 2003, after just 77 days of campaigning and $26.6 million spent to cut through the noise. With 135 people on the ballot, nobody reads a white paper.

Prop 5 deletes the second question. A recall becomes a simple yes-or-no, and the seat gets filled the way California fills any other vacancy. For governor, the lieutenant governor takes over. If the recall happens early in the term, voters elect a new governor at the next statewide election. For other offices, normal vacancy rules apply, meaning an appointment or a later special election. One quirk: the recalled official can run in that special election.

The backstory: The 2021 Newsom recall (46 replacement candidates) exposed the math problem. Newsom could have gotten 49.9% to stay and still lost to someone who won a crowded race with far less. He survived 62-38, so we dodged it. That recall still cost about $200 million in the middle of the pandemic.

Afterward, Secretary of State Shirley Weber proposed splitting the two decisions apart, and then-Sen. Josh Newman carried the constitutional amendment, sponsored by California Common Cause. Newman knows recalls personally: he was recalled in 2018 over a gas-tax vote and won his seat back in 2020. The Legislature passed it in 2024. It amends the Constitution, so it needs our vote.

Supporters: California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the California Democratic Party, Indivisible CA: StateStrong, and the Sacramento Bee.

Opponents: The California Republican Party, Reform California, Election Integrity Project California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and three newspapers: the Press-Enterprise, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chronicle’s objection is narrow. It’s about one provision: letting recalled officials run in the special election to replace them.

A flaw so bizarre even the author doesn’t like it.

San Francisco Chronicle editorial board

As of early October, neither side had raised a single dollar.

The arguments for: A recall should answer one question: do we fire this person? The two-question setup is confusing, and only six other states use it. Letting someone take office without majority support is undemocratic. Picking a successor deserves a real campaign, not a free-for-all. And at $200 million a pop, recalls should be saved for serious misconduct or real unfitness, not petty grievances or a strategy to win a seat you couldn’t win in a regular election.

The arguments against: Voters lose the direct choice of successor. A recalled governor gets replaced by the Lt. Gov., who may be from the same party. Other offices could sit vacant until a later election. And the recalled official gets to run again.

My conclusion: This is just good government.

Even the Chronicle, which endorsed No, makes most of the Yes case for me: the system is confusing and undemocratic, and recalls are too expensive to use for grudges. Its whole objection comes down to one provision, letting the recalled official run in the special election. I agree that’s odd. But in a real election with a real campaign, if voters want that person back, that’s democracy. It’s not a good enough reason to keep the sumo-wrestler system.

The opponents’ biggest worry is that a recalled governor would be replaced by the lieutenant governor, possibly from the same party, instead of by someone voters pick. That doesn’t bother me. Under the California Constitution, the lieutenant governor is already the governor’s designated successor. If the governor dies or resigns, the lieutenant governor becomes governor. If the governor leaves the state or is temporarily disabled, the lieutenant governor serves as acting governor. Recall is the one exception. Prop 5 makes recall work like every other vacancy. And if the recall happens early in the term, voters still choose a new governor at the next statewide election, in a real race with time to size up the candidates.

Bonus: the Lt. Gov. job is excruciatingly boring, and Prop 5 gives it some real girth. Voters would have more reason to ask, “Would I be okay with this person as governor?”

Now the bad news. The only public poll, PPIC in early September, had Prop 5 losing 35% to 59%. Even Democrats were only at 40%. With zero dollars on either side and three of four newspaper boards saying no, nobody is going to explain this on TV, so it lives or dies on word of mouth. Tell your friends: YES on 5. Never again the sumo wrestler.

---

Thanks for reading! If this saved you a few hours of research, please consider buying me a coffee. I don’t take money from campaigns or advertisers, so readers like you keep this weird little passion project going. And please share it with your friends and frenemies. I’ll keep posting my analysis of the measures at votealix.com. Props 37-39 are up next.

#CaliforniaVoterGuide #CAProps #Election2026 #Prop1 #Prop2 #Prop3 #Prop4 #Prop5 #YesOn5 #AffordableHousing #RecallReform #CampaignFinance #CAPolitics #Vote