The 2026 M-A Chronicle Voter Guide

The Election Desk opposes Measure P to support Menlo Park’s affordable housing, avoid future lawsuits, and reduce developmental gridlock.

Measure P, on the ballot in Menlo Park, would require voter approval for any city ordinances that would decrease parking availability in downtown Menlo Park. This measure is in response to plans that would replace select parking lot spaces with affordable housing units downtown.

Proponents of P argue that parking lots are vital to a downtown Menlo Park that already suffers from low foot traffic. They say that rejecting Measure P could put local stores out of business. Supporters point to other locations for affordable housing that don’t require parking to be removed.

Measure P may force Menlo Park out of compliance with state law. According to the 2023-31 Menlo Park Housing Element, the city needs plans to create 3,000 new housing units by 2031 to abide by California law. Breaking state law would mire the city in litigation, potentially trigger “Builder’s Remedy,” and consume valuable city time. In addition, if California sues Menlo Park over insufficient housing plans, Measure P allows for supporters to use private counsel to defend the city and have taxpayers foot the bill. Making building more burdensome would likely delay or cancel projects adding to this legal requirement.

The Election Desk believes that Menlo Park needs more affordable housing. If Measure P were to pass, it would add new hurdles for any future plans that would alter parking in downtown Menlo Park. Measure P doesn’t just require voter approval for any plans to reduce public parking for affordable housing specifically, but for any parking reduction at all. 

Many new projects have plans to increase public parking by building underground lots, however these too would require a vote under P. This would delay construction projects by months, as developers would have to wait for an election to get voter approval. These delays only increase costs for developers, making Menlo Park an even less attractive location for investment.

Proposition RTM comes as a response to declining ridership and funding struggles, partly stemming from budget cuts from the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” passed by Congress last year. Many of these systems are in danger of service cuts due to the deficit. Prop. RTM would increase the sales tax in San Francisco by 1% and in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties by 0.5% for 14 years. This revenue would help fund transportation systems in the Bay Area, including BART, Muni, Caltrain, AC Transit, the VTA, San Francisco Bay Ferry, and Golden Gate Transit.  

While an increased sales tax hits vulnerable populations the hardest, a lack of transportation would hurt them harder. Without additional funding, it will be necessary to close routes and stations, lay off staff, remove ridership discounts for vulnerable populations, and reduce operation times. Not only do many Bay Area residents rely on public transit, but it is also significantly better for the environment than single-occupancy vehicles and reduces traffic. 

Support for Prop. RTM includes:

• Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
• Mayors of San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Redwood City, Walnut Creek, and Tracy
• The Sierra Club
• The NRDC Action Fund

Opposition includes:

• The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
• Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association

Measure O, on the ballot in East Palo Alto (EPA), would issue a $125 million general obligation bond to fund public infrastructure projects in EPA. Specifically, the city aims to upscale its library, build an emergency command center, install youth recreational facilities, establish a permanent police department building, and renovate the city’s aging water and earthquake safety systems. 

Currently, EPA rents space for its police department out of deteriorating county-owned buildings, while the library is overcrowded and in major need of repair. Further, the measure would fund third spaces for children through an updated library and recreational area. Residents of EPA have also expressed their concerns over degrading water pipes that have the potential to leak pollution into the streets if they flood. 

To pay for the bond, EPA would impose an annual property tax of around $105 per $100,000 of assessed value for as long as necessary. Because Measure O doesn’t require the city itself to pay back the bond, it becomes less of a risk for its long-term financial health, instead shifting the tax burden to current property owners

The infrastructure projects outlined in Measure O are estimated to cost around $205 million in total, leaving an $80 million required outside of the GO by private donations, state grants, and EPA’s general funds. However, the money from state grants and donations is directed to the civic center project so that if funds aren’t acquired, they don’t affect all projects.  

Measure O’s contents were established by surveying what EPA’s residents wanted to see changed about their city. The measure was voted onto the ballot unanimously by EPA’s City Council. 

Measure E would bring rent control to Redwood City for the first time. In apartment buildings built before 1995, about 40% of the city’s rentals, landlords could raise rent each year by only 60% of the inflation rate, and never more than 5%. That would be less than 2% this year. The measure would also roll back rents to their October 2025 levels and require landlords to pay at least $12,000 to tenants they evict through no fault of their own. It would not apply to North Fair Oaks, which has Redwood City addresses but is an unincorporated part of the county. 

Measure E would hurt the nonprofits that run Redwood City’s affordable housing, because it does not exempt them. These nonprofits run on thin margins: St. Francis Center, which provides affordable housing in the city, has warned that it could not stay in business if rents did not cover repairs. The mayor argues its fees, which could exceed $700 per unit, would make new affordable housing financially unworkable. 

Rent control helps tenants who already have an apartment, but it makes apartments harder to find for everyone else. Because allowed increases would always fall behind inflation, landlords would have less money for repairs each year. San Francisco caps rent increases at 60% of inflation just like the proposal, and a Stanford study found that landlords there took 15% of their units off the rental market, mostly by converting them to condos or rebuilding. The study concluded that the lost supply raised rents across the city by about 5%. Supporters point out that nearly half of Redwood City renters spend at least 30% of their income on rent. Rent control is not the solution and would deepen the housing shortage that drives high rents. State law already caps rent increases and protects tenants from unfair evictions through 2030. 

Support for Measure E includes:

• Faith in Action Bay Area
• Council member Chris Sturken
• Sequoia District Teachers Association

Opposition includes:

• Mayor Elmer Martinez Saballos and the Redwood City Council
• St. Francis Center
• Chamber San Mateo County
• California Apartment Association

Prop. 1 would let California borrow $11.25 billion to fund affordable housing. $10 billion would pay to build and repair affordable apartments, help first-time homebuyers, and fund housing for farmworkers and college students. The other $1.25 billion would fund home loans for veterans, who would repay the loans themselves. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that paying back the housing bond would cost the state $500 million to $600 million a year for roughly 25 years. 

California’s funds for affordable housing have run dry, with more than 46,000 homes in nearly 500 planned projects waiting on state dollars. The Analyst’s office estimates that Prop. 1 would help pay for up to 40,000 rental homes. 

Opponents argue that interest makes bonds the most expensive way to pay for housing, and some Republican lawmakers say the state should bring down building costs before borrowing more. Housing costs are high: recent projects near M-A cost more than $750,000 per apartment, though the state pays only a small share. 

High costs are a reason to push for cheaper construction, not to stop building and Prop. 1 sets aside $200 million to test cheaper ways to build.

Support for Prop. 1 includes:

• Gov. Gavin Newsom, 
• The League of Women Voters of California
• The Sacramento Bee 
• The San Francisco Chronicle 

Opposition includes:

• State Sen. Tony Strickland and other Republican lawmakers
• The Orange County Register

California has a savings account, called the rainy day fund, to keep the budget steady when a recession cuts tax revenue. The state must add money to it every year, but only until the fund reaches 10% of state tax revenue. Prop. 2 would raise that limit to 20% and would require larger deposits in years when the stock market booms. It would also stop counting money put into savings against the state’s yearly spending limit. 

California’s budget rises and falls with the stock market, so good years are often followed by sudden deficits. In 2021 and 2022, the state ran surpluses of more than $100 billion, but its rules required that it save only about $10 billion. A bigger fund would let the state get through downturns without sudden cuts to schools and services. 

Prop. 2 passed the Legislature 29-2 in the Senate and 59-8 in the Assembly. 

Support for Prop. 2 includes:

• Gov. Gavin Newsom
• Assembly Budget Chair Jesse Gabriel
• The League of Women Voters of California
• California Professional Firefighters
• The Sacramento Bee

Opposition includes:

• Carl DeMaio, Chair of Reform California
• The San Diego Union-Tribune

Without Prop. 3, the state would have to cut funding for schools and healthcare or raise taxes on everyone else. In 2012, voters approved a temporary income tax increase on the state’s highest earners, and in 2016, they extended it through 2030. Prop. 3 would make it permanent. If the tax expires, the state would lose billions of dollars a year from a budget that is already expected to run deficits of about $10 billion a year through 2030.

The tax applies only to income above about $371,000 for single filers and $743,000 for married couples. It raises $5 to $15 billion a year, and about 40% of that goes to schools and community colleges. The rest goes to the state’s general budget, which pays for healthcare and other programs, and part of it is set aside in reserves for downturns. 

 So far, the tax has not driven high earners away: the number of Californians paying the top rates has roughly doubled since 2013. 

Opponents argue that voters were promised the tax would be temporary and that the state should cut wasteful spending before asking for more. But Prop. 3 doesn’t break that promise: instead, it asks voters again. Letting the tax expire would take billions from schools and healthcare, not from wasteful spending. 

Support for Prop. 3 includes:

• California Teachers Association
• California State PTA
• The League of Women Voters of California
• Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
• The San Francisco Chronicle

Opposition includes:

• The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• California Taxpayers Association
• California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
• The San Diego Union-Tribune

Since 1988, California has banned the use of public money to fund political campaigns. Charter cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are exempt and run their own programs, but the ban still applies to the state and to cities like Menlo Park, Atherton, and EPA. Prop. 4 would lift the ban. It would not create or pay for any program. Instead, it would allow state and local governments to choose to create their own programs, so long as candidates who take public money agree to spending limits. 

Opponents argue that tax dollars should go to public services, not political campaigns. But lifting the ban would cost the state almost nothing, and each community should be able to decide for itself whether a campaign funding program is worth the cost.

Seattle is a good example of what public funding can do. Since 2017, the city has sent every eligible resident four $25 “democracy vouchers” to give to city candidates of their choice. A University of Washington study found that the program more than quadrupled the number of people donating in city council races and nearly doubled the number of candidates running. With money coming from ordinary residents, candidates no longer need to cater to wealthy donors to compete, and underperforming incumbents become easier to beat. 

Support for Prop. 4 includes:

• The League of Women Voters of California
• California Common Cause
• California Nurses Association
• The Sacramento Bee

Opposition includes:

• California Taxpayers Association
• California Republican Party
• The San Francisco Chronicle

When Californians vote on recalling a state official, the ballot asks two questions: Should the official be removed, and if so, who should replace them? Whoever gets the most votes on the second question wins, even without a majority. Proposition 5 would remove the second question. A recalled governor would be replaced by the lieutenant governor, and if the recall happened early in the term, voters would choose a new governor at the next statewide election. Other recalled officials would be replaced the same way the state fills other vacancies. 

The current system can put someone in office whom most voters did not choose. In the 2021 recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom, 46 candidates ran to replace him. Had the recall passed, the front-runner, Larry Elder, would have become governor with the support of only about 28% of the voters. In 2018, voters recalled state Sen. Josh Newman, and his replacement won with just 34% of the vote, far fewer votes than Newman received to keep his seat. 

Opponents, including the California Republican Party, argue that Prop. 5 takes away voters’ say in who replaces a recalled governor and hands the job to a lieutenant governor who usually shares the governor’s political stance. That is the point. Recalls are expensive: the 2021 recall cost taxpayers about $200 million, and Californians have tried to recall their governor 57 times since 1913. A replacement race lets the losing side treat a recall as a do-over, a chance to take the office with a small share of the vote. Prop. 5 removes this incentive. Voters could still recall an official who is corrupt or incompetent, but voters who simply disagree with a governor’s policies can vote them out at the next election. 

Support for Prop. 5 includes:

• California Democratic Party
• The League of Women Voters of California
• California Common Cause
• The Sacramento Bee

Opposition includes:

• California Republican Party
• Reform California

Prop. 37 would allow the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to borrow up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to help first-time homeowners buy newly constructed homes and condominiums. The revenue from these bonds would provide a down payment of at least 3% of a home’s purchase price. The recipients of this aid would be residents who have lived in the state for at least one year and have an income that is 200% or lower than the median income of their area.

An important point for 37 is that there is no cost to the taxpayer. The revenue bonds issued by the CalHFA would be bought by private lenders, which the agency then uses to provide mortgage assistance to homebuyers. Those homebuyers, in turn, pay the bond back in their mortgage payments (interest included), which then gets paid back to the private lenders. It’s critical to note that the private lenders are on the hook if a homeowner defaults, not the state.

Opponents of Prop. 37 say that the proposition doesn’t help with the actual issues that make housing unaffordable in California. While this is true, it’s still much more helpful if the state aids new homebuyers instead of having them figure it out themselves.

Support for Prop. 37 includes:

• California Democratic Party
• California Teachers Association
• California Conference of Carpenters
• San Francisco Chronicle

Opposition includes:

• Reform California
• League of Women Voters

Proposition 38 seeks to fill the gaps after cuts to immunology research funding from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed in 2025 by Congress. It would create a bond for $8.4 billion that would fund research into diseases such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. This bond would be paid in $500 million to $600 million in yearly debt payments for the next two decades in the California budget.

While on the surface Prop. 38 seems promising, there are some specific requirements for research centers to get funding. As a result of these specific requirements, the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII) is slated to receive about $4 billion of the $8.2 billion total. The CIII is co-founded by billionaire Gary Michelson, who has donated over $43 million to the Yes on 38 campaign.

There are concerns that taxpayers wouldn’t see a return on their investment with their tax dollars. With the high price tag associated with 38, a supposed return on investment is that the state will receive 10% of certain licensing royalties from discoveries that emerge from this proposition. However, there is no guarantee that the $8.4 billion investment will generate enough revenue to cover that amount.

Support for Prop. 38 includes:

• California Democratic Party
• American Association of Immunologists
• Michelson Center for Public Policy

Opposition includes:

• League of Women Voters
• No on 38
• San Francisco Chronicle

Following the trend of the conservative movement to enact voter identification laws throughout the country, Proposition 39 is California’s attempt at doing so. Prop. 39 would require voters on election day to present a government-issued ID to prove their citizenship. Mail-in voters would have to provide the last four digits of their government ID, like their passport number. In addition, all of the information on the ID would have to match the information the voter used to register to vote.

Californians already have to provide identification when registering to vote. Requiring voters to bring up-to-date identification has raised concerns about disenfranchising certain groups, including people with disabilities and low-income voters. People who change addresses frequently could also be negatively affected, as their current address might not match the one on their ID, giving voting officials reason to reject their vote.

Proponents of Prop. 39 argue that it would strengthen trust in California elections and help to eliminate the widespread voter fraud that happens every election year. They also mentioned that 36 states currently require voters to show a government photo ID on election day. However, California does not suffer from widespread voter fraud. According to the Heritage Foundation, from 1982 to 2025, there have been 71 documented cases of criminal voter fraud in California. When divided by the tens of millions of votes cast in California every election, 71 cases are negligible.

Prop. 39 is an attempt to make voting in California harder for those who already struggle to vote. 

Proposition 40 would enact a 5% wealth tax on individuals and trusts with assets over $1 billion who were residents of California on Jan. 1, 2026. These assets would include stocks, investment accounts, business interests, and personal possessions that hold wealth, which are typically not taxed at the federal or state level. “Possessions that hold wealth” is a loose term that invites taxpayers to look for loopholes to distribute their wealth in an untaxable way. 

California is currently in a $100 billion deficit due to budget cuts from the Trump Administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” This proposition aims to reduce the deficit by allocating 90% of tax revenue to healthcare and 10% to public education and food assistance programs. With around 250 billionaires in California, the group that put Prop. 40 on the ballot estimates that the measure would bring in tens of billions of dollars in the upcoming years. 

The billionaire tax is more symbolic of holding billionaires accountable than it is a solution to California’s budget deficit. Billionaires in California have a history of avoiding income taxes by hiding their wealth in traditionally untaxable forms, bringing in only 2.4% of California’s income taxes. With the United States’ widening wealth gap, proponents claim this one-time wealth tax is a small step to making things more equitable. 

The proposition includes a clause that allows lawmakers to amend the tax after it is passed. This has raised concerns that the tax would be extended to all Californians or enacted more than once, which is unlikely without putting the proposition before voters again. 

It’s also probable that Prop. 40 would drive billionaires out of California for fear that their wealth would be taxed further. The tax, instead of being a way to combat billionaires as proponents would like, could instead incentivize billionaires to avert any further attacks on their wealth by changing locations. California still brings in a considerable amount of revenue from billionaires’ income tax, and losing billionaire residents has the potential to reduce the amount of money in California’s General Fund. Further, it’s almost guaranteed that this proposition would trigger lawsuits as taxpayers attempt to avoid the tax. According to the Hoover Institute, the tax is estimated to have a net loss of $25 billion for California.

Opponents of Prop. 40 have raised roughly three times as much as supporters, bringing in $99.8 million to fight the measure. 

Support for Prop. 40 includes:

• California Democratic Party
• California Labor Federation
•  Sen. Bernie Sanders
•  Rep. Ro Kahana
•  Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. 

Opposition includes:

• Planned Parenthood
• California Teachers Association
• California Medical Association
• Gov. Gavin Newsom

Proposition 41 is on the ballot to nullify Prop. 40. This measure would require the state auditor to review special tax initiatives before they are placed on the ballot and display the auditor’s analysis to voters. In addition, tax initiatives passed after Jan. 1, 2026, would have to undergo additional audits every four years to reevaluate their effectiveness. Finally, taxes enacted after 2026 would be banned from being excluded from California’s spending limit. 

While the last clause of this proposition would currently only apply to Prop. 40, it has the potential to disrupt future measures as well. Furthermore, the auditing efforts suggested in the proposition are estimated to cost millions of dollars, undermining its stated purpose. 

Support for Prop. 41 includes:

• Reform California
• Google co-founder Sergey Brin
• The San Diego Union-Tribune
• The Orange County Register

Opposition includes:

• California Democratic Party
• SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
• The Sacramento Bee
• San Francisco Chronicle

Proposition 42 is on the ballot to nullify Prop. 40. It prevents new taxes from being placed on personal assets such as investment accounts, retirement holdings, and savings, making a wealth tax more difficult to enact. 

Proponents of Prop. 42 argue that retirement taxes would make it even more difficult to live in California, where the cost of living is already high. However, Prop. 40 applies only to billionaires, and no measure would tax the average Californian’s savings. Prop. 42 does more than protect everyday retirement account holders: it also blocks future voters from ever exploring taxes on extreme wealth.

Support for Prop. 42 includes:

• Reform California
• Building a Better California
• Google co-founder Sergey Brin
• California Professional Firefighters

Opposition includes:

• SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West
• California Democratic Party
• The Sacramento Bee
• San Francisco Chronicle

Proposition 43 would raise the threshold to pass all local special taxes from 50% to 67%. These special taxes include sales, real estate, and utility taxes that support local government revenues.

Taxes placed on the ballot by the government already require 67% of votes, and proponents like the California Taxpayers Association argue that the current 50% threshold for citizen-led measures creates a loophole that enables tax increases.

Opponents’ concern is that just 34% of voters could defeat a measure most voters support. They argue that this could decrease the power of a vote and incentivize more corporate influence in elections.

To fund public services, teacher, firefighter, and nurse unions support the higher likelihood of passing special taxes with the current 50% threshold. 

Support for Prop. 43 includes:

• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Reform California
• California Republican Party
• Libertarian Party of California

Opposition includes:

• California Teachers Association
• California Democratic Party
• ACLU of Southern California
• Nurse Alliance of SEIU
• California Professional Firefighters

Proposition 44 would punish community health clinics that spend less than 90% of their revenue on program services that directly help low-income and uninsured patients. It puts these nonprofits in jeopardy of being fined if found in noncompliance with the 90% requirement. 

Currently, most clinics spend around 80% of their revenue on program services, with the remaining 20% paying for administrators. Proponent SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) argues that with federal healthcare funding cuts, administrators’ salaries are funded by money that should be used to pay low-level staff, who directly help vulnerable patients. 

While most nonprofits pay their CEOs between $90,000 and $250,000, nonprofit hospital CEOs are paid $700,000, on average. But without enough information to understand the nuances of the nonprofit healthcare sector and demands on its administrators, voters should not be the ones to arbitrate pay for an industry.

SEIU-UHW has a history of trying to bring voters into their questionable political battles. The union withdrew another initiative to cap administrative salaries at $450,000 in June 2026. It struck a truce with the California Hospital Association to withdraw its initiative if the Hospital Association withdrew their initiative to limit healthcare unions’ participation in ballot fights, a frequent SEIU-UHW tactic. 

Most importantly, the fines enabled by Prop. 44—calculated as the difference between program service expenditures and the 90% requirement—would likely bankrupt community health clinics already running on tight budgets. To comply with the proposition, many clinics would be forced to fire administrative staff, who typically manage fundraising and provide stable experience within the healthcare sector. 

According to the California Secretary of State, this proposition would cost the state tens of millions of dollars to enforce, money that would be directly sourced from fined clinics. 

Support for Prop. 44 includes:

• Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers

Opposition includes:

• California Democratic Party
• California Medical Association
• California Hospital Association
• Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
• San Francisco Chronicle

Proposition 45 would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—which determines the environmental impact of development projects—by instituting faster deadlines to complete environmental reviews and resolve lawsuits against “essential projects.” These “essential projects” include housing, transportation, water and energy infrastructure, hospitals and schools, and broadband and telecommunications infrastructure. Environmental reviews would be forced to terminate after a year, and courts would be required to rule on lawsuits within 270 days.

Proponents argue that Prop. 45 would prevent people from using environmental reviews and lawsuits to delay the timeline for affordable housing projects. But California already has SB 423 (an extension of SB 35 that streamlines approval for new housing in cities with deficits), and it has been used to approve over 3,000 housing units in San Francisco between 2017 and 2023. While the state needs more policies to close the gap between housing supply and demand, this proposition’s ambiguous wording could seriously damage environmental protections.

Despite explicitly excluding developments like prisons and oil production facilities from being deemed “essential projects,” Prop. 45 does not bar data centers. Corporations building data centers have already donated over $2 million to the Yes on 45 campaign, and environmental lawyers argue developers could exploit vague language to secure essential project status.

Most critically, Prop. 45 has too much power. Its goal is to push essential projects through with the “fullest possible weight” and ignores updated environmental standards after the project’s filing date, which would likely undermine environmental review. It states that if a project conflicts with other environmental protection policies, it may override them. Also, any future amendments would require a two-thirds majority in the state legislature and can only “further the initiative’s purposes,” making Prop. 45 virtually impossible to undo if passed.

Support for Prop. 45 includes:

• California Republican Party
• California Chamber of Congress
• California Council for Affordable Housing

Opposition includes:

• California Democratic Party
• California League of Women Voters
• Sierra Club California and 250+ Other Environmental Organizations