Lori’s 2026 Voter Guide
State Propositions & Berkeley Measures
It’s that time of year again! Happy voting.
As I mentioned in my previous email, I’m no longer endorsing candidates. Here are some resources I recommend:
The following endorsements are my own personal opinion and are made in my personal capacity.
My Ballot at a Glance
Tap any line to jump to my reasoning.
California Propositions
YES on Prop 1
Campaign site ↗This measure would authorize $10B in general obligation bonds for affordable and supportive housing and $1.25 billion in mortgage revenue bonds to support homeownership. Because affordable housing is so expensive to build (approximately $800,000–$1 million per unit), it’s no wonder the Bay Area is far behind on its affordable housing goals. There is no way we can address the needs of low-income residents in the immediate future without ongoing public investment. If you’d like to read more, please read this, but this YES is an easy one.
YES on Prop 2
This is another easy one. Prop 2 increases California’s rainy-day budget reserves from 10% to 20%. It would help California weather boom-and-bust cycles and provide more stability. Here’s a cool article from the LAO on reserve policies.
YES on Prop 3
Campaign site ↗This measure permanently extends a 2012 tax on high-income (top 2%) earners (~$365,000 for individuals and ~$730,000 for couples).
- Forty percent has to fund education (89% of that to K–12 and 11% to community colleges)
- The rest goes to healthcare, rainy day funds, or other General Fund uses.
This tax was set to expire at the end of 2030 and has generated $119 billion for education. If it fails, schools could lose up to $15 billion a year. Not only that, but HR1 (that’s what Donald Trump calls the “Big Beautiful Bill,” but it is anything but that) is going to gut California’s healthcare and hospital systems and make it harder for poorer children and families to access food and healthcare. This measure would help offset those effects. If you want to get depressed, read about Medi-Cal cuts hurting children and families, but in the meantime, vote YES on Prop 3.
YES on Prop 4
This repeals the ban on public financing of elections and allows local governments to implement components of public financing. If you are scratching your head wondering how that’s the case because Berkeley has used public financing for quite a few years, it’s because Berkeley is a charter city. This measure applies to the state level and non-charter cities. Most of Berkeley’s candidates use public financing (which is why sometimes the comments about people being bought off by XYZ are kind of funny, because they can only take $60). Anyway, this measure would let jurisdictions opt in, but doesn’t mandate it. Unfortunately, because of Citizens United, big money is still influential in politics in other ways, but nevertheless, this is still a good first step to reduce reliance on bigger donors.
YES on Prop 5
This measure changes recall procedures in California by changing the California Constitution. Basically, this law changes three things:
- When an official is recalled, voters have to choose a successor on the same ballot. This measure gets rid of that. The governor would fill non-legislative vacancies, and for legislative vacancies, a special election would be required.
- If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would serve out the term.
- It removes the prohibition on the recalled officer running for that same seat again in the special election to fill the vacancy.
This measure would help prevent a statewide successor with very little support and replace the current recall procedure, used as a partisan tool, with a more democratic, formal process. If you’d like to read more about recall elections and this measure, read here. Vote YES.
YES on Prop 37
Campaign site ↗Prop 37 is a middle-income homeowners loan program for Californians. It authorizes $25B in bonds to help eligible buyers with loans of up to 17% of the purchase price on a home priced at or below 125% of the Federal Housing Finance Agency conforming loan limit for that county (less than $1.5M). Anyone earning twice the area’s median income would be eligible for these loans, and the home must be their primary residence.
Homeownership is a great way to build generational wealth through home equity. Quite simply, home costs are out of reach for the next generation, with median prices in Berkeley hovering around $1.6 million. That’s why California has some of the lowest homeownership rates in the country.
Critics point out that the median income criteria goes up to two times the median average, isn’t limited to first-time homebuyers, and could have targeted those facing barriers to entering the housing market more closely, among other things. I think those are fair criticisms. Yet I still think this measure is worth supporting because our teachers and city workers deserve to own a home in the cities they work in.
NO on Prop 38
No campaign site ↗This measure would fund $8 billion in immunology research, but I have no idea why this measure hasn’t gotten more press. While I think this measure will pass, it’s troubling how it found its way to the ballot. Like many citizens’ initiatives, sometimes proponents lure you with things we all care about. Immunology research is critically important. I also appreciate that funding medical research is valued, especially when the federal administration doesn’t appear to care about it. So why does the Democratic Party support it, but the League of Women Voters oppose it?
A billionaire philanthropist, Gary Michelson, donated $43 million to this ballot measure for immunology research. He even funded the signature drive to get it on the ballot. That’s great, but who receives these funds? Well, it designates half of those billions of revenue to one research institute that:
- Must focus on immunology and immunotherapy research
- Is affiliated with a UC campus that serves 3.5 million patients
Only one brand new research institute meets these criteria: UCLA’s California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. The co-founder is, yep, you guessed it, that billionaire philanthropist Gary Michelson who funded this measure. The institute would also be exempt from public disclosure laws and would cost the state $500–600 million annually to repay the research bond. There are better ways to fund this type of medical research, and I really don’t like how the democratic process was manipulated to leverage his millions for the taxpayers’ billions into a brand-new institute. It reeks. Maybe that’s why the San Francisco Chronicle wrote:
“Prop 38 is one of the most noxious deposits on California’s political dung heap in years.”
NO on Prop 39
No campaign site ↗This measure requires a government-issued ID card at the polls or an identification number when voting by mail. This is just an extension of Trump trying to undermine elections. Voters already face a felony if they vote illegally, and they sign their votes under penalty of perjury. This is just another step in the consistently eroding Voting Rights Act of 1965 to make it harder for disenfranchised people to vote. Not only that, research shows that voter ID laws don’t reduce fraud. Can you imagine the data breaches and data-entry errors that will occur when processing mail-in votes if this passes? It’s ridiculous and based on completely harebrained conspiracy theories. Low-income, elderly, student, disabled, and voters of color are all less likely to have government-issued ID or face barriers in attaining them. It would also cost state and local governments millions of dollars to implement. Let’s stop this nonsense that isn’t based on reality. Vote NO on Proposition 39.
YES on Prop 40
This is a one-time 5% asset tax on the state’s 246 billionaires. It is so hotly contested that the Google cofounder also funded Prop 41 and 42 to help stop it. This measure was particularly tough for me to land on because, honestly, it’s not written well and will surely be stuck in court. I’m generally pretty skeptical of many populist measures because sometimes they fly in the face of good government principles and things are, well, complicated.
However, as I pointed out in Prop 3, HR1 (The Big Beautiful Bill) is about to rip through California, and poor kids and families will lose their health care, healthcare workers will lose their jobs, and rural hospitals will shut down. Prop 40 would direct 90% of the billionaires’ tax proceeds to a special health care fund to offset the cuts from HR1, amounting to $30 billion a year. The other 10% would mostly go to food assistance.
Critics point to other countries that put wealth taxes on the ballot and pulled back because they were too costly to implement. I’m less convinced by arguments about 246 billionaires fleeing California to avoid wealth taxes or other slippery-slope arguments, because there isn’t solid evidence to back them up, and because this is a unique ballot measure addressing wealth. Also, it is retroactive, so billionaires living here in 2026 will have a challenging time evading it (although I’ve heard of some interesting strategies). I also don’t see the evidence that any potential revenue losses will outweigh the immediate revenue gains. This article by the California Budget and Policy Center highlights many of the unknowns, and here’s the LAO’s analysis of the measure. Cal Matters also wrote an interesting article about Prop 40 here and this memo criticizing it is pretty interesting too.
At this point, I’m going to side with the imperfect. Of course, it will be challenging to implement, will be litigated, and won’t be a permanent solution to HR1’s impact. Sometimes, when I get caught up in analyzing the intricacies of policy, I can get bogged down in the minute details and hone in on imperfections, but the tipping point for me on this one is very simple. The proceeds of this tax on these 246 billionaires will go to help poor people who will lose important healthcare and access to food. I know everything is always more complicated than it seems, but it helps to take a step back and remember that. HR1 will cut billions from Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal covers ⅓ of California’s population and half of kids up to age 5. Food assistance will also be hit. This is all very bad.
I love getting bogged down in semantics and distribution rules, but let’s be real: this is an emergency. Will this reform our healthcare system? No. Does it provide an ongoing source of revenue to make up for the impacts of HR-1? No. Could this lead to complicated evasion tactics? Maybe. Is it bad that it is earmarked? Probably, but at least it does do something. And that’s better than nothing. The real question is: why are Californians in this situation in the first place, arguing over this? It’s all because of HR-1. So take a moment to visit Dave Margulius’ website about swing races. I’m voting YES on this measure.
Remember, if you support the billionaires tax (Prop 40), you will also need to vote NO on Prop 41 and 42.
NO on Prop 41
A signature-gathering drive led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin placed Prop 41 on the ballot to defeat the billionaires’ tax. If both Prop 40 and 41 pass, the one with more votes prevails.
Prop 41 requires the state auditor to review any citizen-led initiative that wants to create a special tax. Also, any new special taxes would be subject to the Gann limit.
Applying strict spending limits to new revenue measures could really hurt cities’ ability to fund urgent priorities amid severe federal and state budget cuts. All of this doesn’t really matter because this whole effort is just to try and undercut the billionaire’s tax, Prop 40. Even if you disagree with the billionaires tax, Prop 41 is still redundant because the state auditor and Legislative Analyst’s Office can already scrutinize these policies. Regardless of how you feel about the billionaires tax, Vote NO on Prop 41.
NO on Prop 42
A signature-gathering drive led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin placed Prop 42 on the ballot to defeat the billionaires’ tax. If both Prop 40 and 42 pass, the one with more votes prevails.
This measure bans new state and local taxes on personal property and prohibits retroactive taxes.
In addition to its purpose of trying to sink the billionaires tax, this measure would severely hamstring California and local governments from raising funding for infrastructure, food assistance, social services, etc. California’s current tax system already benefits the very wealthy and passing this type of regressive taxation will make California cities suffer even more in the face of federal cuts. Regardless of how you feel about billionaires tax, Vote NO on Prop 42.
NO on Prop 43
This is the worst state measure on the ballot, in my opinion. It essentially cements into law one of the most atrocious laws in California history. It requires 2/3s voter approval for special taxes and targets citizens’ initiatives.
There is a long, dramatic backstory too. As you may or may not know, Prop 13 was a citizens tax revolt in 1978. The effect of Prop 13 was enormous—school funding plummeted, housing costs skyrocketed, roads degraded, income inequality skyrocketed, and homelessness proliferated because cities were starved of billions of dollars. There have been several attempts over the years to reform Prop 13, all of which have fallen short. (I even got into a high-profile spat with Disney about the corporation not paying its fair share). In 2017, there was a glimmer of hope when the California Supreme Court ruled that citizens’ tax initiatives no longer had to require 2/3s vote, which is an extraordinarily high threshold to achieve. Anti-tax crusaders were upset by this ruling and led a signature drive to place a measure on the ballot that would cap real estate transfer taxes, require 2/3rds vote, and apply everything retroactively back to 2017. Needless to say, that would have been catastrophic. Berkeley alone would have faced cuts of over $25 million. Cities across California were petrified because they were going to lose millions due to the retroactive nature of the signature petition, which qualified for the ballot. So, there was an elaborate back and forth and negotiating in Sacramento to try to get the anti-tax advocates to pull their measure. The result was Prop 43, which removed the transfer tax and retroactive components. It was a compromise measure, but it still stinks. It would lock in the horrible provisions of the 1978 Prop 13 tax revolt that has created so many of the problems California uniquely faces by starving local governments of the means to address local issues by requiring ⅔ vote for any kind of special taxes. It’s just plain bad policy. VOTE NO on Prop 43.
NO on Prop 44
Prop 44 requires clinics serving low-income communities to spend 90% on patient care. It sounds good in theory except it is an extraordinarily high bar and is why the Democratic Party, clinics serving low-income people, physicians, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood and others are opposing it. This measure is a bad idea because it’s an arbitrary percentage that the vast majority of these low-income clinics can’t meet and then they would face penalties in the billions if they spent money on technology upgrades, capital improvements, or even putting money into a rainy day fund. It is terribly designed, destructive, and would ironically hurt patient care for low-income people. Read this op-ed by the president of the California Academy of Physicians.
NO on Prop 45
This measure would amend the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to speed up environmental review for “essential” projects, which includes transportation, broadband internet, housing, water, clean energy, public safety, education, and public health projects.
The reason why this landed on the ballot is because CEQA is often used to stop or slow down projects. It is notoriously abused, as was evident when Berkeley became a national laughing stock for a students-are-pollution argument (here’s an interesting podcast with Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes discussing it). Cal then had to let admitted students know that they may not be able to attend UC. As a result, Mayor—now Senator—Jesse Arreguín, Councilmember Rigel Robinson, and I wrote an L.A. Times oped pleading with the state’s high court to not shut the door on students wanting higher education. A slew of laws ensued to try to curb the abuses of CEQA, including Berkeley's long-time Assemblymember and State Senator, Nancy Skinner, and our current Assemblymember, Buffy Wicks. I support these legislative efforts to curb abuses and bad-faith uses of CEQA to slow down projects.
My issue with this proposition, however, is that even though it appropriately doesn’t try to CEQA streamline for oil or jails, etc. it still could advantage projects that constitute a real environmental threat to communities. I also still think the legislative process is the best way to tackle these issues, rather than at the ballot box. This measure could streamline environmentally damaging projects, like roadway expansions and low-density greenfield development. It also would cement this into stone and any amendments would require ⅔ votes making it virtually impossible to change.
Local Measures
OK, moving on to the local measures. Honestly, my local measure takes aren’t different from our local Democratic club, so check out the Berkeley Democratic Club’s recommendations here, but I will run through briefly my thoughts.
YES on RTM
I don’t think people truly understand how important this measure is. If it doesn’t pass, BART will revert back to 1970s services and likely have to cut 15 stations. What’s more, it will at least double or triple your commute times.
This measure is a 14 year half cent sales tax. While some critics argue against sales taxes on progressive grounds, if this measure doesn’t pass, low-income people who rely on transit will have to pay almost $4,000 a year in travel expenses, and commutes for everyone will be worse. Not only that, if this measure doesn’t pass, thousands more cars on the road will lead to 184,000 more metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. If we want our economy to thrive, we must have an interconnected region. VOTE YES on RTM
YES on Measure U
This is the city’s infrastructure bond to help repair the $1.6–2 billion deferred maintenance needs of our infrastructure (see, this is what I was talking about with respect to Prop 43). Measure U is essentially a continuation of Measure T1, our successful previous bond that has been tapped out. It helped build the Willard Clubhouse, renovate fire stations, replace the turf at Tom Bates fields, fix the road out to the Marina, improve senior centers, and the list goes on. It was audited every two years with 100% compliance and was able to leverage an additional $80 million in outside funding.
Measure U has similar deserving projects. The list is here. It would upgrade parks, pools, community centers, address sea level rise at the Marina and repair the docks, improve the Bay Waterfront trail, modernize the 911 emergency dispatch center and fire stations. It would help clear the backlog of sidewalk repairs, modernize city buildings like the Animal Shelter, and improve ADA access. Here is a presentation of the proposed bond. It would also improve Garber Path and improve steps and accessibility!
More than anything, if we keep punting our infrastructure upgrades, it just makes the financial situation worse. Our non-partisan auditor has studied these issues extensively and supports this measure. Vote YES on U.
YES on Measure V
Measure V is a half cent sales tax that brings us in line with our neighbors in Albany and Oakland. The reason you are voting on this measure is because City Council wanted the public to determine whether they would close the additional budget deficit. Measure V is currently tied to 33 positions, mostly firefighters and police officers, along with a few parks staff that lead after school programs. If this measure doesn’t pass, the City will have to fire more city workers, mostly firefighters and police officers. I realize this seems alarmist, but recurring costs and the structural deficit are tied to positions, not one-time expenses, so that means jobs. General Funds are weighted toward public safety positions for a variety of reasons, so that’s why so many public safety positions are listed. Unsurprisingly, this has wide ranging support from Democratic clubs, the Chamber of Commerce, firefighters, unions and the Sierra Club. Vote Yes on Measure V.
YES on Measure W
This is a charter clean up with no opposition. It’s mainly to comply with state law.
YES on Measure X
Measure X amends the Rent Stabilization Ordinance, fixing some challenges tied to a previous voter-approved measure, mainly because affordable housing organizations were saddled with excessive fines. It also caps annual rent increases at 10%, including previously banked increases, among some other fairly minor amendments.
YES on Measure Y
This is the arts measure to enact a $0.07-per-square-foot parcel tax on property improvements for 12 years raising more than $6 million annually for an Arts Vitality Fund. Ever since COVID, the performing arts have been struggling. Also, cities are trying to figure out ways to increase nightlife and foot traffic to help economic development. The bulk of the proceeds goes to performing arts. There are exemptions for low-income households and there are substantial community benefits like free performances and discounted tickets.
NO on Measure Z
Zon’t Zo it (sorry, I’m getting delirious because this ballot is so long).
This is a citizen’s initiative for a parcel tax to establish a regional bank in the city. However, no money was provided to our finance department, city auditor, or city manager to set up and support this operation. Plus, who thinks the city has time or knowledge to run a bank?!? On top of that, Berkeley has to foot virtually the entire bill for a regional bank to the tune of over $50 million. No wonder the County Democratic party supports it — I would too if it meant another city could pay for benefits my city accrued. That’s right—there’s no guarantee your money stays in Berkeley.
There are other elements that aren’t thought out well. Basically, the city would continue to collect parcel tax proceeds even if (and I think when), the state or feds says it’s a no-go. But the city wouldn’t be able to do anything with those proceeds until 2033. So, if a fiscal emergency occurs and the city is sitting on top of heaps of cash from this, it is essentially frozen and can’t be accessed. Read a few councilmembers’ takes on this here.
This measure is incredibly shortsighted, even if it’s well intentioned. If it passes, the city will likely have to commit to additional funding for those various departments in order to get this measure legally compliant, but as I already stated, the city’s budget can’t afford it. I’m voting NO on Z.
YES on Measure AA
This would increase Berkeley’s sugary drink distributor tax from one cent to two cents per ounce.
In 2014, Berkeley was the first city to tax distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages. Over the past decade, the tax has funded health and dental screenings, nutrition education, gardens, and other programs benefitting Berkeley and soda consumption has declined! Measure AA still guarantees independent oversight of the funding for public health purposes. Vote YES on AA.
↑ Back to the top · Happy voting!