Your Vote, Your Voice
A Guide to the November 2026 Statewide Ballot
Voting is one of the ways we can shape the decisions that affect our families, neighborhoods, and communities. This is especially important in Los Angeles County, where Latina/o residents make up a majority of the population. Latina/o communities are directly affected by decisions about housing, education, healthcare, economic opportunity, and other issues on the ballot. When we participate, we have a stronger voice in shaping policies and investments that affect our communities.
Would allow California to borrow $11.25 billion to invest in affordable housing and veteran homeownership programs. Most of the funding would support affordable rental housing, homeownership, farmworker housing, student housing, housing infrastructure, and other housing programs.
A “YES” VOTE would authorize the $11.25 billion bond for affordable housing programs. It would give the state new resources to address housing needs that existing funding has not been able to meet, including the need for more affordable housing for students.
A “NO” VOTE would leave the state without this new bond funding. Housing programs would continue to rely on existing state resources, local funding, federal support, and other sources that may not be sufficient to meet current demand.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles County
Housing affordability is a major challenge for Latina/o families. About 55% of Latina/o renter households spend more than 30% of their income on housing, compared with about 49% of California renters overall.
Previous state housing bond funding approved by voters in 2018 was fully committed within five years. Major affordable housing programs remain oversubscribed, while thousands of affordable homes are waiting for funding to move forward.
Would allow California to increase its state “rainy day fund” from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenues. The fund is used to help maintain essential services when the economy slows or state revenues decline. The measure would also change how California saves money during years with unusually high capital gains revenue and expand the types of state debts that may be repaid with these funds.
A “YES” VOTE would allow California to build a larger rainy day fund and make additional deposits during years when the state receives especially high capital gains revenue. This could give the state more financial protection during future economic downturns.
A “NO VOTE” would keep the current 10% cap on the state’s rainy day fund. The state would have less ability to build up reserves, but more revenue could remain available for current investments and programs during strong budget years.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
A larger reserve could help California avoid sudden cuts to education, healthcare, housing, and social services during an economic downturn. These cuts can have a greater impact on lower-income families and communities of color. The measure could also mean less money is available for immediate investments during years when the state has strong revenues.
Would make permanent an existing state income tax on the top 2% of California filers, passed in 2012.The measure does not raise taxes or change existing rates; it removes the expiration date for the top tax brackets set to expire in 2030. The revenue would continue to support the state’s General Fund by helping meet the TK-14 funding requirement and frees up revenue for other programs and services. Since the tax’s passage in 2012, these higher tax rates have generated around $120 billion for schools and other essential services.
A “YES” VOTE would make the existing higher income tax rates permanent instead of allowing them to expire. The revenue would continue supporting K-12 schools and community colleges.
A “NO” VOTE would allow the existing higher income tax rates to expire as currently scheduled in 2030. California would eventually lose this dedicated source of education revenue, which could reduce the amount of funding available for public schools and community colleges.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Latina/o students make up approximately 56% of California’s K-12 students, making stable public education funding especially important to Latina/o families. Latinos make up approximately 41% of California’s population and rely on programs supported by this revenue, including healthcare, food assistance, education, and other essential services.
Allows the state and local governments to create voluntary programs that help local candidates compete without relying as heavily on large private donations. The measure does not require governments to create these programs; it gives them the option to do so.
A “YES” VOTE would allow California and local governments to create public financing programs, making it easier for some candidates to run for office without relying as heavily on private campaign donations.
A “NO” VOTE would keep the current statewide ban on public financing of election campaigns. Local governments would continue to have limited authority to establish these programs under existing law.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Latina/os remain underrepresented in elected office compared with their share of California’s population.
Public financing could give more candidates, including candidates from historically underrepresented communities, an opportunity to run for office and compete for voters.
Would change how California replaces a statewide elected official after a successful recall election. Instead of choosing a replacement during the recall, voters would decide only whether to remove the official. The office would then be filled under California’s existing replacement rules.
A “YES” VOTE would remove the replacement candidate election from the recall process. If a statewide official is recalled, the office would be filled according to existing state succession and vacancy rules.
A “NO” VOTE would keep the current system, where voters decide whether to recall a statewide official and choose a replacement candidate during the same election.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
If a statewide official is recalled, separating the recall vote from the election of a replacement would give, Latina/o voters, who make up more than 40% of eligible voters in Los Angeles County, more time to learn about candidates and make an informed choice.
Approves a $25 billion bond to create a state homebuyer assistance program for eligible California residents with moderate to higher incomes. Eligible buyers would contribute at least 3% of the home’s purchase price and could receive a loan of up to 17% to help reach a 20% down payment. The assistance would be repaid as a second mortgage, in addition to the buyer’s primary home loan.
A “YES” VOTE creates the new homebuyer assistance program and authorizes CalHFA to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to finance it. Eligible buyers could receive a repayable second mortgage to help cover part of their down payment.
A “NO” VOTE denies the authorization of a new bond. Existing state homebuyer assistance programs would continue.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Latina/o households make up 30.4% of California households but account for 25.7% of homeowners, reflecting a persistent homeownership gap. Recent CalHFA data also shows strong demand for state down payment assistance, with Latina/o applicants making up 39.2% of applicants and 40.8% of awards through the Dream For All program.
Allows California to borrow $8.4 billion to fund research focused on using the immune system to prevent and treat diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. Half of the funding would go to one UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute, with the rest awarded through competitive grants. The bonds would be repaid through the state General Fund over about 20 years.
A “YES” VOTE allows the state to borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research at California research institutions and universities.
A “NO” VOTE would not borrow the $8.4 billion for this research program, and the proposed funding structure would not be created.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Latina/o adults are about 1.5 times more likely than non-Latina/o White adults to develop Alzheimer’s disease or other dementias. The measure funds medical research rather than directly expanding healthcare coverage, access, or affordability. Its impact on Latina/o communities would depend on whether future research leads to treatments that are affordable and accessible.
Requires voters to provide additional identification when voting through government-issued ID when voting in person or providing the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail. It would also require election officials to verify voter citizenship using government records and create new tedious election administration and auditing requirements.
A “YES” VOTE requires voters to provide additional identification each time they vote and creates new citizenship verification and election administration requirements.
A “NO” VOTE keeps California’s current voter identification process, where a voter’s identity is generally established through their signature when voting.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
New identification and verification requirements could create additional challenges for eligible Latina/o voters, particularly those who may have difficulty obtaining, locating, or updating government-issued identification.
Naturalized citizens and voters with differences in their records will also face additional steps to verify their eligibility. Community organizations may need to devote more time and resources to voter education and assistance, potentially shifting capacity away from broader civic engagement efforts.
Creates a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of California taxpayers and trusts with more than $1 billion in assets. The measure is expected to raise about $100 billion over five years, with most of the money going toward healthcare programs, including Medi-Cal.
A “YES” VOTE creates the one-time 5% wealth tax and directs the revenue to healthcare, education, and food assistance programs.
A “NO” VOTE denies the creation of the one-time wealth tax.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Prop. 40 could provide significant funding for programs widely used by Latina/o families, who make up about 52% of Medi-Cal enrollees. However, because the tax is collected only once, it would not provide a permanent source of funding for programs facing ongoing costs and federal funding reductions.
Requires audits of programs funded by new statewide special taxes and changes how new special tax revenue is treated under the state’s spending limit.
A “YES” VOTE requires new audits of programs funded by special taxes and changes how certain new tax revenue counts toward the state’s spending limit.
A “NO” VOTE keeps the current rules for state audits.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Prop 41 could change how new special tax revenue is counted under the state’s spending limit, and could make it more difficult to create and sustain dedicated funding for future programs. Additional limits or requirements on new statewide special taxes could delay funding, reduce available resources, or make it harder for the state to respond to growing needs in communities that have historically faced barriers to healthcare, educational opportunity, and economic stability.
Note: If both measures receive a majority of YES votes, but Prop. 41 receives more YES votes than Prop. 40, the courts could determine that Prop. 41 prevents Prop. 40 from taking effect.
Limits California’s ability to create“wealth” taxes in the future, including potential taxes on accumulated wealth or financial assets.
A “YES” VOTE prevents the state from creating new taxes on financial assets and other personal property covered by the measure and limits most retroactive taxes.
A “NO” VOTE keeps the state’s current ability to consider new taxes on these assets in the future.
Prop. 40 connection: If both pass, but Prop 42 receives more YES votes than Prop. 40, the courts could determine that Prop. 42 prevents Prop. 40 from taking effect.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Prop 42 would not change current taxes on retirement or investment accounts. Its main effect would be to limit the state’s ability to create new wealth taxes in the future.
This could affect future funding options for healthcare, education, and other public services used by Latina/o families.
Requires voter-proposed local special taxes to receive at least two-thirds approval, instead of a simple majority. The change would apply to new, increased, or extended taxes proposed by voters beginning January 1, 2027.
A “YES” VOTE requires certain voter-proposed local special taxes to receive two-thirds voter approval.
A “NO” VOTE allows these local special taxes to continue being approved with a majority of voters.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Prop 43 could make it harder for communities to approve future local funding for schools, affordable housing, transportation, public health, parks, libraries, and other services. Latina/o communities rely on many of these locally funded services, so the impact would depend on the types of measures proposed and whether they receive the higher level of voter support required.
Requires community health centers that receive federal funding to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on a narrowed scope of services. Clinics that do not meet the requirement could face financial penalties.
A “YES” VOTE would require qualifying community health centers to spend at least 90% of their revenue on a narrowed scope of direct services.
A “NO” VOTE keeps the current rules and allows health centers more flexibility in how they use their revenue.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Latina/o patients make up about 44% of patients served by California’s federally qualified health centers, making them the largest patient group served. The measure limits a clinic’s ability to use resources for essential services, such as translation and language access, healthcare enrollment assistance, patient transportation, telemedicine, among others.
Shortens the environmental review process for certain housing, healthcare, transportation, water, and other projects. It would also shorten some opportunities for public comment and legal challenges.
A “YES” VOTE creates shorter timelines for environmental review, public comment, and some legal challenges for certain projects.
A “NO” VOTE keeps the current environmental review process and timelines.
Impact on Latina/os in Los Angeles
Latina/o communities are more likely to experience environmental health risks, with about 76% of Latina/o neighborhoods in California being identified as disadvantaged communities affected by environmental burdens. Shorter review and comment periods could limit residents’ ability to raise concerns and leave environmental impacts inadequately assessed before projects are approved.
Voter Guide Coming Soon!