2026 General Election Voter Information
What it does:
Authorizes $11.25 Billion in General Obligation Bonds to support the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Proposition 1 maintains programs which allow low income and moderate income families; Veterans; California Tribes, and Farm Workers to purchase homes. The initiative supports existing programs that provide:
- Affordable housing for families.
- Housing with wrap around services for the unhoused and people are at risk of becoming unhoused.
- Rehabilitation of multi-family affordable housing; and prevention of that housing from being converted to market rate.
- Grants for construction of high density, multi family affordable housing.
- Grants supporting the development of housing for farmworkers and their families.
- Grants supporting home ownership for low and moderate income families; and veterans.
The Pro Arguments:
The revenue from the bonds maintains essential funding to support housing specifically for populations who have limited resources and access to acquire secure housing.
The Con Arguments:
The cost to the State General Fund is $580 Million a year. Repayment of the principal and interest on the $10 Billion Bond would total $17.4 Billion.
What is does:
If passed, the tax increases created by Proposition 30 in 2012 on the top 2% of tax payers would become permanent. The tax is currency paid by individuals with taxable income at or above $371,000 and $743,000 for married couples. This is not a new tax, it preserves taxes that would sunset in 2030. The tax has raised $120 Billion since implemented and approximately $10 Billion annually in the past few years. The revenue is divided between K-12 Education (89%); and community colleges (11% ). If revenues collected create a surplus over the established school funding requirements, the additional revenue would fund healthcare services up to $2 Billion
The Pro Arguments:
Since it is not a new tax, it maintains a steady revenue stream for the state General Fund to assist in buffering revenue shortfalls in the future. Continuing this funding also helps to offset federal government funding cuts in healthcare. Failure to pass Proposition 3 would have a negative impact on the State General Fund, which could result in cuts to essential services.
Con Arguments:
California’s tax structure disproportionately relies on collecting revenue from wealthy residents, Proposition 3 continues the trend. Diverse revenue streams reduce budget instability from year to year. Passage may incentivise wealthier individuals to move to states with more favorable tax structures.
What is does:
Prop. 5 would separate the vote to recall a state official from the choice of a replacement. If a governor were recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over; legislative vacancies would generally be filled in a later special election; and certain other vacancies could be filled by appointment. A recalled official could run in a later special election. It does not directly change Oakland city government or local services.
The Pro Arguments:
Supporters argue that the current system can let a replacement win with only a small share of the vote when many candidates are running. Separating recall from replacement could reduce that risk and make it harder to use recalls to install a candidate who might not win a regular election.
Con Arguments:
Opponents argue that voters should be able to choose a replacement immediately after removing an official. Under Prop. 5, some successors would be appointed, and legislative districts could lack a representative until a later election. For Oakland and Black communities, that could mean a period with less direct representation if a state legislator serving the area were recalled. There is no clear basis to say the measure would uniquely affect Black Californians; the impact would depend on which officials were recalled and how vacancies were filled.
What is does:
Allows the state to sell revenue bonds to give 17% of the purchase price to buyers of newly constructed property, to be applied to the down payment; typically down payments are 20%. Repayment would be added to the mortgage of the new homeowners. The program requires the purchased home to be newly constructed or newly converted to residential use. Borrowers could not make more than 200% of the median income of the purchase area.The is no cost to the state since the cost of the bonds are repaid by the new homeowners.
The Pro Arguments:
Potentially makes home ownership more affordable for middle class families. A down payment of $160,000 (20%) is typically required to purchase an $800,000 residence without assistance. The buyer would be required to provide $24,000 (3%) toward the down payment. The requirement of the newly built homes increases the housing stock and would potentially create construction related jobs.
Con Arguments:
Families of color are under-represented at the income levels required to qualify for the program; The program does not mitigate other barriers to home ownership for working families. The requirement of newly constructed homes would most likely increase suburban sprawl, which has numerous negative environmental impacts. Newly constructed homes often have excessive HOA fees.
What is does:
This proposal would require voters to show government issued identification (such as a drivers license or passport) at the polls to vote, and would require mail in voters to provide the last four digits of a government ID when casting their ballot. The proposition would also fund a program that would issue a new type of government ID which satisfies the voting requirement for free to any citizen who requests it.
The Pro Arguments:
Proponents argue the measure will increase voter confidence in the system, reduce voter fraud and assist state officers in keeping more accurate voter files. Since the new government ID is free, no voter would be disenfranchised by the new requirements. Thirty six other states require voters to show some form of identification at the polls.
Con Arguments:
Approximately 25% of Latinx adults don’t have a driver’s license that shows their current address and 41% of youth between the ages of 18-24 don’t have one either. If passed, the proposition would create an additional barrier for these voters. Individuals concerned with government overreach might refrain from voting. Non-partisan studies show voter fraud at approximately one quarter of one percent (.0025%). California voters are required to accurately provide their name and address under penalty of perjury when registering. Opponents feel Proposition 39 is redundant, unnecessary and creates new barriers to voting for numerous individuals who are legally eligible voters.
What is does:
Imposes a one-time 5% tax on California residents with over $1 billion in covered assets, such as stocks, business holdings, art, and intellectual property. It explicitly excludes real estate, pensions, and standard retirement accounts. Ninety percent of the collected revenue is dedicated to public healthcare services, with the remaining ten percent allocated to food assistance and education.
The Pro Arguments:
Supporters argue the tax could raise up to $100 billion to replace lost federal funding, protect community healthcare services, prevent mass teacher layoffs, and ensure billionaires pay a fair share toward public infrastructure.
Con Arguments:
Opponents argue that the tax could trigger capital flight, causing wealthy residents to relocate out of state, which could reduce ongoing state income tax revenue by up to $25 billion and bypass constitutional school funding protections.
What is does:
Requires mandatory pre-election and recurring state performance audits for programs funded by voter-approved special taxes. It also prohibits new state taxes from excluding their revenues from California’s constitutional spending limit.
The Pro Arguments:
Proponents argue that independent audits ensure government transparency, prevent wasteful spending, and verify program performance before taxpayers fund new special taxes.
Con Arguments:
Opponents argue that Prop 41 is a counter-measure designed to block Proposition 40 by eliminating its constitutional spending limit exemption, legally freezing wealth tax revenues from being spent.
What is does:
Amends the state constitution to prohibit new state taxes on personal property and bans retroactive tax legislation. This would include retirement savings, business holdings, financial assets, and intellectual property.
The Pro Arguments:
Advocates state that Prop 42 protects middle-class savings, pensions, and 401(k) accounts from double taxation, providing financial predictability amidst California’s high cost of living.
Con Arguments:
Opponents contend that because Proposition 40 already excludes middle-class pensions, Prop 42’s broad definition of personal property is primarily designed to shield billionaire stock portfolios and patents from taxation.
Outcome Scenarios:
The Highest Vote Rule
Under California law, if conflicting measures pass on the same ballot, the measure with the highest number of “Yes” votes wins.
For example Proposition 40 would be implemented only if it passes (greater than 50% yes votes) AND prevails by receiving the most “Yes” votes over Proposition 41 and Proposition 42.
Proposition 40 is blocked: If either Proposition 41 OR Proposition 42 passes with more “Yes” votes than Proposition 40, the California legal conflict clause takes effect, voiding Proposition 40 even if a majority voted for it.
The Highest Vote Rule also applies to Propositions 41 and 42.
What is does:
California Community Clinics that serve low income patients would be required to spend 90% of their annual revenue on patient care. The California Attorney General would be required to define what qualifies as spending on patient care and what does not.
The Pro Arguments:
Supporters of the initiative say the wait for medical care at community clinics is too long whereas patients suffer needlessly. The cuts to the medical safety net at the federal level creates the need to dedicate more funding toward patient care.
Con Argument:
The 90/10 split would greatly reduce or eliminate the ability for clinics to invest in capital improvements, new equipment, technology upgrades and disaster preparedness. There are too many unknowns, it is unclear how the Attorney General will classify clinic spending.
Regional Transit Measure (RTM)
The Brotherhood Of Elders Network Has Endorsed This Initiative
What is does:
Increases the sales percentage tax by ½ of one percent in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and one percent in San Francisco County for the next 14 years. The funding would support BART, AC Transit, VTA, Caltrain, SamTrans and MUNI. The increase is projected to generate $980,000,000 annually. The RTM would also create a 21 member individual citizen oversight committee, and empower the Metropolitan Transit Commission with authority to withhold funds from the transit agencies for failing to meet the Oversight Board’s financial oversight and accountability measures.
The Pro Arguments:
Hundreds of thousands of people rely on public transportation to get to school, work, medical appointments and local businesses. The new funding is needed to prevent deep cuts in transit service throughout the Bay Area in the future. The impact on transit services without the proposed sales tax may include:
- Reduction in AC Transit service by 16%
- Closing of 15 BART Stations
- Reduction in MUNI service by 30% and the cancellation of 20 bus routes
The use of public transportation reduces road congestion and supports the environment.
Con Arguments:
The transit agencies have done a poor job at managing their current budgets, and the proposed oversight is ineffective. Money to support many of the agencies could be diverted from funds for the failed high speed rail project. The new tax would push Alameda County’s tax rate to 11.25%.
What is does:
Measure EE would move Oakland toward a strong-mayor system. The mayor would become the city’s chief executive, manage city operations, and gain veto power over legislation and individual budget items. The City Council could override a veto with six of its eight votes.
The Council would gain an independent budget and legislative analyst’s office, subpoena and hearing powers, and confirmation authority over selected department heads. Councilmembers would become full-time officials, and the measure would formalize their ability to relay constituent concerns and request information, with city officials required to respond promptly.
The Pro Arguments:
Supporters argue that clearer executive authority would make it easier to identify who is responsible for city performance and could improve coordination and speed. They also point to the Council’s new oversight powers as a check on the mayor. Full-time Council members may have more time for legislative work and constituent concerns.
Con Arguments:
Opponents argue that Measure EE concentrates too much power in the Mayor’s Office and raises the stakes of each mayoral election. A stronger citywide executive could coordinate services, but could also make district-level concerns less influential.
Residents would still be able to contact their Councilmember, and the measure protects Councilmembers’ role in relaying concerns. But “respond promptly” is not a guaranteed deadline or promise that a resident’s issue will be resolved. The measure changes authority; it does not guarantee better service. Critics also raise concerns that higher elected-official salaries could add costs during Oakland’s fiscal challenges.
Contact
The Brotherhood of Elders Network is made up of brothers with deep roots in community leadership. We build and sustain intentional partnerships that focus on building unity and collective strategies toward a thriving, healthy, and robust Bay Area for Black families and communities. If you're interested in learning more, or have a partnership idea, please reach out via the contact form here.
1714 Franklin St, 100-177
Oakland, CA 94612