November 2026 Endorsements

Prop 1 - Bonds for affordable housing - Yes

You know how we feel about bonds, but this $11.25 billion bond is building something: multi-family low-income housing. The lack of housing in general is perhaps the biggest problem in California. Now, the 40,000 homes this hopes to add are a drop in the bucket compared to the 1.6 million affordable homes that are needed, but it’s something.

Prop 2 - Increase rainy day fund - Yes

California has a rainy day fund to deal with leaner budget years. It is currently capped to 10% of the size of the general fund, which itself is capped by something called the Gann limit. Prop 2 would increase the cap to 20% and also change the fund’s charge to the Gann limit from happening when money is deposited to when it’s withdrawn. All these limits were set up during the tax revolt years of 1970s, which we’re pretty much over. We like these changes.

Prop 3 - Jerry Brown tax plan - Yes

We voted for Prop 30 in 2012 to add progressive taxation to California, voted to extend it in 2016, and now we’re voting for Prop 3 to make it permanent. (Maybe it’s true what they say, that temporary measures often wind up being not so temporary.)

Prop 4 - Don’t not have public funding of campaigns - Yes

Current law prohibits state and local governments from using public funds for campaigns. We are generally in favor of public campaign financing, and this just removes the prohibition and makes it an option.

Prop 5 - Recall process changes - Yes

When there's a recall in California, the ballot includes both the choice to recall and a long list of candidates to select for the replacement, the winner possibly getting only a small percentage of the vote. Prop 5 would take off the second item, installing the lieutenant governor right away and then electing a new governor in a special election. We think this is probably a better method.

We would really prefer whichever system would make recalls harder, although we’re not sure which one of the two choices that would be. We'd really like to get rid of recalls all together; we prefer impeachment for getting rid of a problematic official.

Some object to Prop 5 because it would make it possible for the recalled official to run in their own replacement election. Even the initiative’s author finds this odd, we hear. But we think it would actually be hilarious if voters were to opt for a recall and then re-install the ousted official a few months later—let’s see it!

Prop 37 - Middle-income first-time home loan down payments - Yes

One of the biggest obstacles to overcome for people trying to get into the housing market is the 20% down payment. Not many people can save $200K to get into a $1 million house, often relying on their boomer parents for the money. Prop 37 would allow the state to loan them 17 of those percentage points, reducing the down payment to 3%. Crucially, this would only apply to first-time middle-income buyers of newly-constructed modest homes. The real solution is to build a lot more homes, but meanwhile we think this is badly needed and happy to vote yes.

Prop 38 - Bond for immunology medical research - No

At first this seems like a good thing to fund, but why is it showing up in the ballot initiatives? Oh, because it’s been specifically created to trick us into funding one particular newly-created organization called the California Institute for Immunology & Immunotherapy. The SF Chronicle calls this “one of the most noxious deposits on California’s political dung heap in years.” Yeah, we’ll pass.

Prop 39 - Voter ID - No

Does California have a problem with voter fraud? Not that we’ve heard. Apparently 41% of voters are concerned about it, but not us.

Prop 40 - Billionaire wealth tax - Yes

It’s no secret that wealth inequality has been increasing for a while now, and we’re interested in trying to undo it. We think billionaires should be willing to accept deals such as this in hopes of avoiding future civil unrest as things get worse. Whatever unfairness there might be in Prop 40, the billionaires can afford it—their portfolios will likely regain the lost 5% after just a few months. This is a one-time tax, but we hope to do it again, and hope other states will try it too.

We did have a dissenter, who pointed out that some billionaires have already left the state to protect their money from Prop 40, and now we’ll lose out on their income taxes and capital gains taxes for years to come. It’s possible that Prop 40 will end up being a net loss for this reason. Also, he thinks that California should be happy to be the home of tech giants such as Google and that sending the signal that those companies and their uber-successful founders are not welcome here has been hurting California and benefiting other states like Texas.

Prop 41 - Prop 40 poison pill number 1 - No

Tries to kill Prop 40 with a technicality, outlawing Prop 40’s exemption of its spending from the Gann limit.

Prop 42 - Prop 40 poison pill number 2 - No

Tries to kill Prop 40 by outlawing wealth taxes. Texas passed something like this to lure billionaires there.

Prop 43 - ⅔ majority for local special taxes - No

The 1970s tax revolt years brought about this rule where ⅔ majorities were needed to raise taxes. Apparently some locales were able to get around this rule through the courts, and Prop 43 would make it clearer that they can’t. But we don’t actually like the ⅔ tax rule, so we’re voting against this.

Prop 44 - Community health clinics must spend 90% of their money on services - No

We don’t like bureaucracy either, but 10% would be a very small amount for a health clinic to spend on administration—unrealistically small. A lot of that bureaucratic weight isn’t their fault, it’s the system they operate in. Turns out Prop 44 is brought to us by the same people who concocted the dialysis bills from recent years. It’s really an attack on non-union companies by labor unions. Nice try. What are the odds they’ll have another one for us in 2028?

Prop 45 - Environmental review modifications - Yes

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), while well-intentioned, has become the primary tool used by those who want to prevent things from getting built, including housing. Prop 45 seeks to expedite CEQA reviews and de-weaponize it. Some claim that Prop 45 goes too far and will allow freeways and data centers to get built, but after decades of little building we are willing to go too far. We can always pull it back later with another initiative.