Voting is Sacred 2026 Voter Guide
Where people of faith stand on the propositions on your November 3rd ballot.
We belong to one another. We at PICO California believe every person is sacred. Caring for our neighbors includes helping build communities where families can afford to stay and have a voice in the decisions that shape their lives. We bring that responsibility to the ballot, asking how each measure helps us care for one another.
California Propositions: November 3, 2026 Election
YES on Proposition 1 Authorizes Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs
Authorizes $11.25 billion in state bonds: $10 billion for affordable rental housing and homeownership programs, and $1.25 billion for farm, home, and mobilehome purchase assistance for veterans. Includes $200 million for the new Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Program (CAPP) and $450 million for the Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program.
- Supporters: Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democratic state lawmakers, Housing California, AFL-CIO California
- Opponents: Republican state lawmakers
PICO CALIFORNIA POSITION:
Home is sacred. A stable home gives a family somewhere to build a life. Children can stay connected to their school, and neighbors can remain close to the people who depend on them. Making that possible is a responsibility we share. Prop 1 would authorize $11.25 billion in bonds for housing, including affordable rental homes and help with homeownership. We support this investment because families deserve a future in the communities they call home.
YES on Proposition 2 Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund
Raises the cap on the state's "rainy-day fund" (Budget Stabilization Account) from 10% to 20% of General Fund tax proceeds, changes required annual deposits, and excludes reserve deposits from the state spending limit. Also allows some revenue to pay down the state's ~$20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt.
- Supporters: Gov. Newsom, legislative Democrats
- Opponents: Legislative Republicans
YES on Proposition 3 Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes
Makes permanent the 2012 voter-approved income tax rates (up to 12%) on high earners (over $360,000 individual / $721,000 couple), currently set to expire in 2031. Revenue — an estimated $5–15 billion a year — is split 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
- Supporters: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Association
- Opponents: California Taxpayers Association
PICO CALIFORNIA POSITION:
Our children’s future is a responsibility we share. Strong public schools give children room to discover what they can become. Sustaining those opportunities asks more of those who have the greatest ability to contribute. Proposition 3 would make permanent the existing higher income-tax rates on California’s highest earners, which otherwise expire in 2031. The revenue supports schools and community colleges, along with other state services. We support continuing that contribution so our communities can provide the education and care families depend on.
YES on Proposition 4 Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns
Allows state and local governments to set up public financing systems for political candidates who agree to spending limits and strict qualifying rules — reversing California's 1988 ban on public campaign financing. Also increases penalties for prohibited foreign contributions to ballot measure and election campaigns.
- Supporters: California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, League of Women Voters, ACLU California Action
- Opponents: California Taxpayers Association
YES on Proposition 5 Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers
Eliminates the simultaneous "successor election" when a state officer is recalled (the process that replaced Gov. Gray Davis with Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003). Instead, the office stays vacant until filled under existing law — with the Lieutenant Governor stepping in if the Governor is recalled — and allows the recalled official to run again later.
- Supporters: League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, Secretary of State Shirley Weber
- Opponents: Election Integrity Project California
YES on Proposition 38 Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research
Authorizes $8.4 billion in state bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research targeting diseases like cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's, split between a UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute and grants to public/nonprofit institutions. Resulting drugs and technology would be required to sell at 20% below the national average price.
- Supporters: Gary Michelson (philanthropist), Meyer Luskin (institute board member), The ALS Association, The Alzheimer's Association, Blood Cancer United
- Opponents: Robert Kaplan, former associate director of the National Institutes of Health
NO on Proposition 39 Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification
Amends the state constitution to require government-issued photo ID at the polls (or the last four digits of an ID number for mail ballots), requires the state to issue free voter ID cards on request, and mandates annual reporting on citizenship-verification rates.
- Supporters: Reform California, Californians for Voter ID, Rep. Ken Calvert (R)
- Opponents: League of Women Voters of California, ACLU California Action, California Donor Table
PICO CALIFORNIA POSITION:
Every eligible voter deserves a voice. Our neighbors belong in the decisions that shape their lives. Protecting their freedom to participate is a responsibility we carry, including when their choices differ from our own. Prop 39 would require government-issued identification for in-person voting and matching identification numbers on mail-ballot envelopes. A missing or mismatched number could keep an eligible voter's ballot from counting. We oppose adding requirements that can exclude eligible voters over paperwork, and support preserving the existing verification process.
NO on Proposition 41 Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues from State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes
Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new statewide special taxes, and applies revenue from any new tax enacted after January 1, 2026 to the existing voter-approved state spending limit. Widely seen as a countermeasure designed to blunt or cancel out Prop 40's billionaire tax if both pass — whichever gets more "yes" votes prevails.
- Supporters: Building a Better California (funded largely by Sergey Brin, John Doerr, Michael Moritz), Reform California, California Chamber of Commerce
- Opponents: Proponents of Proposition 40 (the billionaire tax)
NO on Proposition 42 Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes
Prohibits any new state tax on personal property — including retirement accounts, financial assets, and business interests — as well as retroactive taxes, for anything enacted or effective after January 1, 2026. Like Prop 41, it's designed to undercut the billionaire wealth tax (Prop 40); if both pass, the one with more votes wins.
- Supporters: Building a Better California, Reform California, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, California Chamber of Commerce
- Opponents: Proponents of Proposition 40 (the billionaire tax)
NO on Proposition 43 Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services
Beginning in 2027, requires a two-thirds supermajority for voters to approve local special taxes — including those proposed directly by citizen initiative — up from a simple majority, and restricts local property (ad valorem) taxes. It emerged from a last-minute deal state lawmakers struck with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
- Supporters: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- Opponents: Million Voters Project (MVP)
PICO CALIFORNIA POSITION:
Protect our power to care for one another. When neighbors organize to meet a community need, they deserve a fair chance to carry their work forward. Prop 43 would raise the approval requirement for voter-proposed local taxes dedicated to specific needs from a majority to two-thirds. A minority could block funding even when most voters support it. Our communities need the ability to fund affordable housing and the local services people depend on. Voting NO protects the current majority-vote rule for these community-proposed measures.
NO on Proposition 44 Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% Of Revenue on Program Services
Requires federally qualified health centers (community clinics) to spend at least 90% of revenue on direct patient care and program services rather than management/overhead, with financial penalties for noncompliance funneled into a state account for worker training and staffing.
- Supporters: SEIU–United Healthcare Workers West
- Opponents: California Primary Care Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Teachers Association
NO on Proposition 45 Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects
Amends the California Environmental Quality Act to set firm deadlines for environmental review of housing, transportation, water, health, and clean-energy projects, and limits courts' ability to delay or block approved projects. Supporters call it a fix for permitting delays; opponents say it weakens environmental oversight and public input.
- Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, Building a Better California, California Building Industry Association, PG&E, Edison
- Opponents: Clean and Healthy California (environmental coalition), California State Building and Construction Trades Council
Sources: CalMatters, The Ballot Brief, California Secretary of State.
Key election dates
Share this guide with your congregation, your family and your neighbors. People are more likely to vote when someone they trust reaches out.
