EVEN MORE TAXING QUESTIONS
This article was published in the July 25, 2026 issue.
Stay strong, comrades. We are on the home stretch of Ballot Avenue, and what a long, strange trip it’s been.
While the billionaire tax proposal and numerous housing initiatives have garnered the most pre-election publicity, it’s time to shine some light on a number of lesser-known propositions focusing on elections, healthcare and school funding.
Prop. 44 Regulate Healthcare Spending
This item sounds deceptively simple. It would require all health centers and clinics to spend 90% of their revenue on programs and patient care, leaving only 10% for management and overhead. Failing to do so would result in fines paid to the state to fund healthcare worker programs.
Sounds good – the debate is whether it is too good to be true.
A quick Google search shows virtually no California hospital or clinic runs on 10% for management and overhead, with a good performance in the range of 30-35%.
And which staff is part of “patient care?” Do janitors and food service workers count? The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West should know, since it backs the measure (the same union that put up the Billionaires Tax).
The statewide association representing 2,300 community health clinics is adamantly opposed and tried unsuccessfully to sue to block the measure. The state’s powerful doctors’ lobby also opposes it. A state analysis said it would cost tens of millions of dollars to enforce and might lead to clinic closings and other “uncertain” impacts.
Prop. 38 Immunology Research Fund
This initiative actually does what it says it will do. If approved, an $8.4 billion bond will be floated to fund research in immunology (see the title) and immunotherapy. Half the money would go to a new immunology and immunotherapy institute at the University of California. The rest would be handed out as grants. Research topics could include cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and others. It is backed by a broad range of advocacy and healthcare groups.
Prop. 3 Fund Schools and Healthcare
Actually, this would only fund schools (nice try, marketing team). This measure, if approved, would make permanent a current tax expiring in 2031 that adds about 1% to 3% to high earners’ income tax. The tax has been in place since 2012 and applies to those making $360,000 a year for single filers and $721,000 for those filing jointly.
The money goes to local school districts and community colleges. Any leftovers go to the state’s fiscal reserves, which might just possibly, in the right circumstances, maybe, could be used for healthcare and other services. Sheesh.
Prop. 4 Public Financing of Campaigns
Raise the eyebrows on this one because it was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom.
This measure would allow state and local governments to offer public financing to candidates running for office, one of the progressives’ cherished goals aimed at getting corporate and dirty money out of politics. Public financing is also supposed to end the craven practice of politicians kowtowing to donors.
Accepting the governmental cash would mean a candidate would abide by spending limits and follow criteria approved by said government (which would have to be approved before handing out tax money/cash). This thing is more opaque than the bottom of a Coke bottle. Rich candidates would just ignore the option and fund themselves; those with corporate contacts would ignore the public option and its restrictions. Incumbents would have an advantage, in my view, because of name recognition, thus the legislature and governor are all onboard.
Prop. 5 Recall Elections
Making recall elections simpler is the goal here. This constitutional amendment would change the current recall rules which dictate there must be “replacement candidates” on the ballot along with the officeholder being recalled. If the official is recalled, the replacement candidate getting the most votes wins. A slew of replacement candidates can result in someone getting booted and replaced by another someone with, say 40% of the vote.
Prop. 5 would eliminate the “replacement” candidates. Instead, voters would have one question: recall or keep. If an official is recalled, the position will remain vacant until it is filled by appointment or during an election, depending on the laws governing vacancies. It would also allow the recalled official to run in the election to fill the vacant seat (known as the Glutton for Punishment Amendment), but they can’t be appointed to fill the seat they were just kicked out of.
The State Legislature placed the measure on the ballot.
Prop. 39 Voter Identification
Voter ID requirements are the darlings of the President Trump wing of the Republican Party. Similar to numerous offspring from the Trump fan base, this measure would require Californians to show official, government-issued ID every time they vote.
It is opposed by Democrats, voting rights groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and the entire progressive fan base, who point out voter fraud is rare and voters show ID when registering to vote. Implementing the voter ID initiative would cost local and state governments up to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs per election.
