I oppose Proposition 39 because eligible citizens should not lose practical access to the ballot through a new identification requirement.

Proposition 39 would require government-issued identification for in-person voting and the last four digits of designated government identification on mail-ballot envelopes. The Legislative Analyst estimates implementation costs ranging from tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. [Read the official Proposition 39 guide](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/39/)

The measure provides for free voter-identification cards, but a nominally free card still requires documents, time, transportation, and a successful administrative process. Those burdens do not fall evenly, especially on people who are unhoused, disabled, elderly, low-income, or moving frequently.

Election security and voter access both matter. California should verify eligibility through accurate registration, signature review, accessible administration, and accountable audits without building a new barrier between eligible voters and their ballots.

I support Proposition 40 because California can ask people with billionaire-level wealth to make a one-time contribution to health care, education, and food assistance.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaires who were California residents on January 1, 2026, due in 2027 with a more costly five-year payment option. It generally excludes real estate, pensions, and retirement accounts. Ninety percent of revenue would fund health care, with the remainder supporting education, food assistance, and administration. The Legislative Analyst estimates temporary revenue in the tens of billions of dollars over several years, with possible ongoing state income-tax losses below $1 billion annually. [Read the official Proposition 40 analysis](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/40/analysis.htm)

The measure creates administrative and legal complexity, and it does not solve the need for durable progressive revenue. It does direct extraordinary private wealth toward urgent public needs instead of relying on taxes on everyday purchases.

Propositions 41 and 42 may legally conflict with Proposition 40. If either receives more Yes votes than 40, a court could decide that the conflicting measure prevents 40 from taking effect. That is one reason I recommend Yes on 40 and No on 41 and 42.

I oppose Proposition 41 because it would make new state special taxes harder to use for the public purposes voters approve.

Proposition 41 would require audits before the election once proponents of a new initiative special tax collect 25% of the required signatures, followed by audits every four years. It would also restrict exemptions from the state spending limit for new special taxes and apply to taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. Initial audit costs are estimated in the low millions of dollars annually, while the overall fiscal effect is unknown. [Read the official Proposition 41 analysis](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/41/analysis.htm)

Audits can improve public accountability. This measure combines them with a constitutional restriction on how voters may raise and use revenue. It also creates a possible conflict with Proposition 40.

I support audits, transparent budgets, and outcome reporting through rules that improve public control. I do not support using those goals to narrow the state’s capacity to meet public needs.

I oppose Proposition 42 because the state constitution should not permanently shield broad categories of personal property, including financial assets, from new state taxes.

Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on owning personal property and certain taxes applied retroactively to past activity. It would nullify conflicting taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. The Legislative Analyst concludes that future state revenue could be lower than it otherwise would be. [Read the official Proposition 42 guide](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/42/)

Retroactive taxation can raise legitimate fairness and administration concerns. A broad constitutional ban goes further by removing future choices before the public knows what need, tax design, exemption, or concentration of wealth may be at issue.

The measure may also conflict with Proposition 40. I support fair-tax safeguards and public debate about specific proposals. I do not support a permanent constitutional barrier that protects financial wealth from democratic review.

I oppose Proposition 43 because it would make it harder for local voters to fund services they choose.

Beginning January 1, 2027, Proposition 43 would require two-thirds approval for new, increased, or extended voter-proposed local special taxes. Current court decisions allow those citizen initiatives to pass by majority vote. The Legislative Analyst finds that future local revenue could be lower, depending on which proposals reach the ballot and how voters respond. [Read the official Proposition 43 analysis](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/43/analysis.htm)

A special tax should clearly state its purpose, cost, duration, administration, and reporting. Voters should then be able to decide it by majority rule. A one-third minority should not automatically control whether a community can fund a service.

Berkeley depends on local revenue for public health, housing, transportation, arts, and infrastructure. I support strong disclosure and oversight while preserving the democratic authority of local voters.

I oppose Proposition 44 because safety-net clinics need accountability that measures patient access, care quality, staffing, and financial practices, not one statewide spending ratio that can penalize a clinic without protecting its patients.

Proposition 44 would require affected nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers to spend at least 90% of annual revenue on charitable program services. “Program services” includes more than direct patient care. The Attorney General would administer the rule, and estimated state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars annually would be funded through clinic fees. [Read the official Proposition 44 guide](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/44/)

As a medical case manager, I know that care also depends on scheduling, records, language access, compliance, facilities, billing, technology, and the staff who hold those systems together. The Legislative Analyst identifies possible service reductions or clinic closures among the potential responses.

Clinics should disclose spending, executive compensation, reserves, related-party transactions, patient access, wait times, staffing, and outcomes. Oversight should correct misuse without destabilizing the places low-income patients rely on.

I oppose Proposition 45 because faster project delivery should come from capable agencies, clear standards, and early problem-solving, not weaker public review and narrower legal remedies.

Proposition 45 would change California Environmental Quality Act procedures for designated housing, transportation, water, health, and other projects. It would shorten review and litigation timelines and narrow the scope of court review. Initial state and local costs are estimated in the high tens of millions of dollars annually and could exceed $100 million, partly offset by fees. Longer-term effects remain uncertain. [Read the official Proposition 45 guide](https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/45/)

California needs housing and infrastructure. It also needs meaningful alternatives analysis, tribal consultation, public participation, and remedies when agencies fail to follow the law. A speed requirement without enough institutional capacity can shift costs onto communities and ecosystems.

I support predictable review deadlines, complete applications, early consultation, adequate staffing, and transparent resolution of disputes. Those changes can improve delivery while preserving the public’s right to understand and challenge environmental harm.