Knock LA

Knock LA recently released the latest edition of our Los Angeles voter guide, but we’re all weighing in on the same state ballot measures. We broke out this mini-guide to send to your friends and family who are elsewhere in California.

Ballot measures have drawn an extraordinary amount of money from billionaires, tech elites, and corporate lobbyists looking to confuse you into voting against your self-interest. Google Billionaire Sergey Brin has donated more than $100 million to defeat Prop 40 in and of himself, and the airwaves and our mailboxes are flooded with deceptive advertising. In this poisoned media environment, we’re here to help.

As always, we hope this voter guide makes your life a little easier in the hustle and bustle of daily tasks and to-dos. It is a labor of love for a better Los Angeles and reflects dozens of conversations with organizers, government staffers, lawyers, and everyday Angelenos. We pour in countless hours of research, writing, fact-checking, and editing to bring you these recommendations. It’s only possible with the powerful team at Knock LA — big props to our volunteers!

Knock LA is a project of Ground Game LA, bringing you independent progressive journalism since 2017.

State Measure 1: Yes

The approval of Proposition 1 would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds in order to fund affordable housing programs. The majority — $10 billion — would go towards homeownership programs, farmworker housing, affordable student housing, tribal housing, and other initiatives. If voters approve it, the bond sale is expected to finance up to 40,000 multifamily rental units and assist another 40,000 households with buying a home. The remaining $1.25 billion would specifically be allocated to veteran housing.

It is no secret that California’s housing crisis is beyond concerning. Creating financial support for affordable housing, rent-burdened households, and vulnerable populations is a step towards remedying the absolute inhumanity of more than 187,000 people being unhoused in the state of California.

State Measure 2: Yes

If approved, this proposition would amend the California State charter to move 20% of general fund tax revenue into reserves — also known as the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) — increasing the ceiling from the previous 10%. Approval would also authorize spending tax revenue to pay down the state’s federal unemployment insurance debt, totaling $20 billion, through a change in how “excess” capital gains revenues are calculated. The proposition would change the relationship between deposits into the BSA and the state spending cap, commonly called the Gann Limit. Put in place by voter-approved ballot initiative in 1979, the current spending cap law limits growth in state and local government spending funded by tax revenue and requires that the government will remit funds to taxpayers when the limit is exceeded. Under current law, deposits into state reserves are counted as dollars spent and dollars withdrawn are not counted as spending. The approval of Proposition 2 would codify the inverse: deposits into reserves would not count as spending, while withdrawals would. 

More money in California’s savings account is a good thing. Period. This proposition is opposed by right-wing groups like Reform California, an ultra-conservative PAC that is chaired by conservative activist and sentient frown line Carl DeMaio. So take from that what you will.

State Measure 3: Yes

This ballot measure extends a tax on the top 2% of income earners, first enacted in 2012. The new measure, titled The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act, will make permanent a range of income taxes for high-earning individuals, beginning at 10.3% for people making $360,000 per year and capping at 12.3% for those making $721,000 or more per year. The overwhelming majority of revenue collected from this tax — which totals up to $15 billion annually — funds California’s public schools. The remaining 11% goes to community colleges and any extra is allocated to public healthcare. 

Allowing this tax to expire would cause up to a 10% budget cut for California public schools. One in six public school teachers would face termination as a result. Essential programs, like free lunch initiatives, would be cut, just to fund a handout to the wealthiest Californians. Our recommendation needs no further explanation: vote yes.

State Measure 4: Yes

Prop 4 would end a ban on public financing for campaigns and allow local governments to build programs that provide political candidates with public funds. State law allows charter cities to distribute public funds for campaigns, but not state and county governments. If passed, Prop 4 would require the creation of expenditure limits and other criteria for candidates seeking public funds. Campaigns would be prohibited from using the money for legal defense fees, fines, or repaying personal loans. 

This proposition doesn’t create a public financing plan, but makes it possible for us to fight for the creation of an equitable system. In a world where money still sways elections, public financing has been a powerful tool for working people to participate in politics. If you follow Los Angeles politics — which you probably do, you’re reading Knock LA — you’ve seen matching funds make it possible for progressive challengers to compete with the big money of the Los Angeles Police Protective League (LAPPL) or the landlord lobby. At the same time, many of our favorites in other cities or running for state legislature have been swamped by wealthy interests.

Prop 4 would help us open our elections to candidates who do not have personal fortunes or a network of rich donors. Vote yes.

State Measure 5: Yes

Under current California law, a special election to select a successor occurs at the same time as a successful recall removes someone from office. This bizarre system means that a much smaller plurality of voters can drive a recall and replace a majority-elected official. Prop 5 would require a public office to remain vacant after an official is recalled rather than the position being filled by a simultaneous election. It would also allow said recalled officials to run again for the office they were recalled from if there is a special election, and the measure would authorize the lieutenant governor to step into a gubernatorial vacancy if the governor is recalled. 

Recalls are a tool that conservatives and right-wing activists love to haul out when they’re upset about the policies set by Democratic lawmakers, or even the simple fact of their existence. Unsurprisingly, the California Republican Party came out in opposition to Prop 5, because the current anti-majoritarian recall system is essentially their only chance to capture a statewide race. Anti-progressive, cave-dwelling Reform California is also among this proposition’s opponents. 

This is a basic measure to make our elections more rational and more small-d democratic.

State Measure 37: Yes

Election season is not complete without at least one mysteriously worded ballot measure about homeownership. In that way, Prop 37 provides. 

If passed, Prop 37 would create a second mortgage program for qualified homebuyers on qualified homes, with $25 billion in bonds to fund the program. “Qualified homes” are defined as newly constructed homes, townhomes, row houses, condominiums, and residences in nonresidential buildings — key words: “newly constructed.” Proponents of Prop 37 include, unsurprisingly, realtors and the construction trades. The mortgage under this program would cover up to 17% of the purchase cost, essentially pushing the down payment to 3%. The most likely beneficiary, then, would be a household with stable middle-income work but without the savings for a down payment. 

While this can provide some real benefits for homebuyers without ready capital, it’s not a real solution for the housing crisis. Think of it as an industry subsidy, providing demand-side funding to encourage new construction; realtors like it because it increases home sales, unions like it because it increases construction work.

We’re not opposed to this proposition, but it is hardly a cure for the housing crisis.

State Measure 38: No

This proposition would issue $8.4 billion in bonds to support immunology and Alzheimer’s research. We sure do like medical research, don’t we? 

But there’s a catch. This proposition is designed with a number of specific conditions on who qualifies for this funding. So specific, in fact, that only one institution would qualify: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which happens to be chaired by the chief funder and proponent of Prop 38. 

This is a total corruption of the ballot process and not how we should be funding medical research. Vote no.

State Measure 39: No

It’s a big, resounding “no” on this one. Prop 39 would require all California voters to show a government-issued ID when voting in person and to provide the last four digits of a government-issued ID when registering to vote by mail. Election officials would also be mandated to maintain “accurate” voter registration lists and to ensure that all voters on said lists are US citizens. As California law stands, voters are already required to show a government-issued ID and social security number when registering to vote, but are not required to do so at polling places. 

This is an anti-democratic move by conservative lawmakers who continue to project about election fraud. It is another way for them to make voting more difficult and to create barriers for young people, people with disabilities, and low-income voters. This measure is supported by the California Republican Party and billionaire-backed Reform California.

Tell them to go to hell and vote no.

State Measure 40: YES!

This measure is a billionaire tax. It would require the approximately 200 billionaires in California — who are defined as taxpayers with assets valued at $1 billion or more — to pay a one-time, 5% tax at the start of 2027. 90% of funds would be earmarked for healthcare, and the remaining 10% allocated to education and food assistance. 

This is absolutely vital. Trump’s administration slashed $100 billion of Medi-Cal’s federal funding. Without Prop 40 revenue, millions of people in California will lose their healthcare. Hospitals will close. Medical workers will be laid off. People will fucking die.

There is another reason this proposition is necessary, and why the worst bootlickers in the state are trying to block it. Prop 40 asks us whether the oligarch class, who have amassed more wealth than any person could spend in a dozen lifetimes, are subjects of our democracy. Everyone subject to this tax will, in spite of it, end the year richer than before. They are not threatened by the hit to their pocketbooks, they are threatened by the possibility that they might be in any way accountable to the people.

The corrupting influence of money in politics can be seen in the ghoulish way some liberal lawmakers and organizations have come out against Prop 40. All we have to say is that those people — Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra, Katie Porter, and all the rest — have betrayed you. They have chosen to side with the absolute impunity of the billionaire class over your right to health and life. They would sooner see you and millions of Californians like you sicken and die before calling on the richest people in the history of the world to pay a fraction of their fair share.

Vote yes, and don’t forget.

State Measure 41: NO!

Off the bat, it’s a no. Prop 41 was introduced as a way to nullify and defeat Prop 40. It contains language that could make taxation more complicated, but that’s secondary to its main purpose. 

Along with its companion ballot measure Prop 42, it contains language stating that if this measure receives more votes than Prop 40, then Prop 40 does not go into effect, even if Prop 40 passes. It was put on the ballot to confuse the electorate. No for this one and for the following one, too.

State Measure 42: NO!

This measure would create a ban on new taxes that target personal property, and was, similarly to Prop 41, designed to block the billionaire tax. Like its counterpart, Prop 42 would make Prop 40 null and void if the former receives more votes than the latter. Also like 41, this measure was put on the ballot by the billionaires who think they can put one over on the voters. 

No on both 41 and 42.

State Measure 43: No

Prop 43 is about limiting the ability for new taxes to be proposed and enacted. It would raise the threshold for new, local ballot measures that propose, increase, or extend special taxes initiated by individuals to pass. Currently, the California Constitution requires local tax measures proposed by local governments to be approved by a two-thirds vote and those proposed by citizens to be approved by simple majority. Prop 43, if passed, would push the latter’s threshold for enactment up to a two-thirds vote. Requiring a supermajority would make it almost impossible to pass any tax, destroying the ability of the state to fund itself.

This is more bullshit from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, one of the most destructive groups in the history of the state. The ultimate goal of this measure is to make it impossible for the state to raise revenue or fulfill the basic functions of a government.

Vote no.

State Measure 44: No

A tough one in terms of parsing the language in its text. If passed, the measure would require federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on advancing the center’s mission. “Require community health clinics spend 90% of revenue on program services” seems great. However, this would come at a steep cost. This is intended to target executive pay and overhead costs… but what qualifies under this proposition? Does training and recruitment count? What about facility maintenance, or data security, or legal advice to determine Prop 44 compliance? “The Attorney General decides” is not a great way to do business, particularly when noncompliance comes with monetary penalties.

Clinics must meet certain criteria to be classified as an FQHC, including being located in or serving a high-need community and providing services on a sliding scale. So this measure, if passed, would place greater restrictions and penalties on clinics that serve low-income, rural, and non-white communities at a time when the healthcare landscape in California is already precarious. This measure will likely result in clinic closures and the loss of services in vulnerable areas.

State Measure 45: No

The sales pitch on 45 is reform of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a 1970 state law that requires public agencies to analyze, disclose, and minimize the significant environmental impacts of proposed discretionary projects before approving them. If passed, the proposition would shorten the review process for development projects deemed “essential,” which includes construction of housing, power infrastructure, and highways, among others.

While CEQA has in some cases been abused to prevent housing and transit projects, the cure can’t be worse than the disease. Prop 45 is a mix of arbitrary timelines and carve-outs that are designed to serve the most destructive developers rather than improve our state’s built infrastructure. The goal of radically shortening the amount of time for public comment and agency review is meant not to improve the review process but to evade it entirely; the time limits that would be imposed on the courts by Prop 45 have been described as “arbitrary and unrealistically short” by the Judicial Council.

Ultimately Prop 45 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, using the need for housing and transit to fast-track highway construction and AI data centers. 

Over 400 organizations oppose this: including the ACLU, the Sierra Club, the California Firefighters Association, the American Lung Association, and organized labor. That last group is a particularly clear example of the goals of Prop 45, as the building trades will endorse almost anything that increases construction. This proposition, however, is not about actually building out the things we need — it’s a corporate-funded power grab dressed up as reform. 

Vote NO.