California has a decision to make about taxing billionaires.

Proposition 40, also known as the billionaire tax, would levy a one time 5% tax on California residents worth more than $1 billion.

It's based on who lived in the state as of January 1st, 2026, meaning billionaires who left the state after the first of this year would still owe it.

Most of the money would go toward health care, with a smaller portion for Education.

Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers West, the union pushing and funding the measure, says it would bring in $100 billion.

Money, the union says, is needed to replace what was lost from federal health care cuts passed last year.

Conservatives argue California's medical program has grown too expensive, and new federal policies will help the state rein in spending.

This is where it gets tricky.

Props 41 and 42 are essentially the billionaire backed answers to proposition 40.

Prop 41 would require new tax proposals passed after the start of this year to follow the state's annual spending limit, a cap passed by voters in 1979.

Prop 41 would also require the nonpartisan state auditor to review new tax proposals before they reach voters, and identify potential spending cuts in the programs they'd fund.

The billionaire tax would automatically violate this provision because it isn't written to comply with the state spending limit.

meanwhile prop 42 would bar new taxes on personal property such as businesses, investments, retirement accounts, trusts and art collections.

It would also prohibit retroactive taxes, which would block a key part of prop 40, taxing wealth accumulated before the measure takes effect.

Only one outcome can prevail if if prop 40 gets more votes than both 41 and 42.

The wealth tax takes effect, If either 41 or 42 out pulls prop 40.

The billionaire tax doesn't happen.

Vote yes on property and no on props 41 and 42.

If you want the billionaire tax to move forward, vote no on prop 40 and yes on prop 41 and prop 42.

If you don't want the billionaires tax to happen.

for Cal Matters.

I'm Kristen Hwang.

Should California borrow $11.25 billion to fund affordable housing?

Prop one would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund various affordable housing programs.

Of that amount, $1.25 billion would go toward veteran housing, while the rest would fund rental homes, homeownership programs, farmworker housing, affordable student housing, tribal housing, and more.

The bond is expected to help fund up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, while also helping another 40,000 households buy a home.

Proponents say California needs more money for housing to help the state's more than 180,000 homeless residents, as well as those who can't afford their rent or to buy a home.

It has taken years to get us to this point, the bond really reflects the reality that to solve California's housing crisis, a broad portfolio of investments is required, Some Republican legislators have accused those who support the measure of using veterans to drum up support, while actually doing little to serve them.

I also have some of the concerns that my colleague from Bakersfield and Kern County has that this is a veteran bait and switch bond, using veterans to pass your $10 billion general obligation bond when the general obligation is 90% of this in only 10% goes to the veterans.

they also question the wisdom of borrowing more money to pay for housing, without addressing the underlying reasons of why it's so expensive to build in California.

So vote yes if you want to allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing programs.

Or vote no if you do not want California to sell 11.25 billion in bonds to fund affordable housing programs.

For CalMatters, I'm Marisa Kendall.

Should you have to show your ID when you vote?

In California, proposition 39 would require voters to provide government issued identification at the polls.

It would also order election officials to verify that all registered voters are U.S.

citizens.

Voters who mail in their ballots would need to give the last four digits of a government ID, such as a driver's license number.

California currently requires residents to provide an identification card and social security number to register to vote, but does not requested at polling places.

Supporters argue that ID requirements of voting sites will strengthen voters trust in California's election process, and that most states require voters to show some form of identification to vote.

Opponents say requiring ID will make it harder for eligible voters who don't have a driver's license or other supporting documents to vote.

They say this will disproportionately affect those with disabilities who are low income or have recently moved.

So vote yes if you want voters to provide government issued IDs in person or by mail to vote.

Vote no if you do not want voters to be required to show IDs to vote.

For CalMatters, I'm Nadia Lathan.

Should attacks on California's high earners become permanent to fund K-12 and community college staff and programs.

the tax, first enacted in 2012 on a higher earners in California, set to expire in 2031.

Proponents consider it essential for funding education and health care.

If prop three passes, this income tax on these higher earners would become permanent.

Under the measure, income taxes for top earners range from 10.3% individual income over $360,000 a year 12.3% for individual income over 721,000 a year, with graduated rates in between.

89% of the money goes to K-12 public schools, and 11% goes to community colleges, any excess going to public health care.

The tax typically raises between $5 billion and $15 billion a year.

Supporters consider the tax a vital source of revenue for schools.

They say if prop three fails and schools lose up to $15 billion a year, they will likely have to lay off workers, cut programs and make other reductions.

Opponents point out that California already has some of the highest income taxes in the country.

they say the measure may spur wealthy Californians to leave for lower tax states taking jobs and revenue with them.

So vote yes if you want to make the tax on higher earners permanent.

Vote no if you want the rates on higher earners to expire in 2031.

For CalMatters, I'm Carolyn Jones.

state agency be able to borrow money to help you buy a home?

California's housing finance agency would be able, but not required to borrow up to $25 billion to help would-be home buyers purchase newly built houses and condos.

These loans could provide up to 17% of a homes purchase price, if paired with a typical mortgage.

That would leave buyers with a cash down payment of just 3%.

That's $24,000 for an $800,000 home.

Home buyers would repay the loan in monthly installments to private lenders.

Anyone earning up to twice the area's median income would be eligible.

Only newly built homes would qualify, which the props backers say will stimulate more housing construction.

One key idea to keep in mind: the state government would not be going into debt here.

If homebuyers can't repay the loan, its private lenders, not taxpayers, who would be on the hook.

Supporters say a typical mortgage with a down payment equal to 20% of a homes value just isn't feasible for many Californians, given how pricey the typical house is.

This loan program, they say, will put the dream of homeownership within reach of the middle class.

Without costing taxpayers a dime.

Some opponents argue that state government should not be involved in the mortgage lending market.

Others say state programs like this should direct support to people with especially low incomes, and who need the help the most.

Still others note that while it could help more people buy homes, it would only do so by allowing them to go even deeper into debt.

So vote yes if you want to let California's Housing Finance Agency offer this new type of loan to house hunters.

Vote no if you don't think the state should be offering a new type of mortgage.

For CalMatters, I'm Ben Christopher.