Six measures above 50%, down from eight

Likely voters, PPIC Statewide Survey, Oct. 16–22

■ Yes    ■ Undecided    ■ No

Source: PPIC Statewide Survey, October 2026 (1,086 likely voters, ±3.8 pts). Change is in yes share, in points, vs. PPIC's September survey. Berkeley IGS (Oct. 19–25) had Prop. 40 at 42% to 50%.

Five measures look like clear winners (Props. 37, 2, 1, 3 and 38). Three look like clear losers (Props. 44, 39 and 43). The billionaire tax and the CEQA overhaul have both turned negative, and the countermeasures to the billionaire tax are now coin flips.

Opponents: $305M. Prop. 40's backers: $33M.

Millions of dollars in reported contributions, through Oct. 22

Main committees against 40 and for 41 and 42, mostly funded by Building a Better California

SEIU-UHW committee (one fund: Yes on 40, No on 41 and 42)

Source: Secretary of State contribution totals, through Oct. 22. Building a Better California has raised $333.1M in all (Ballotpedia). Contributions, not ad spending.

Prop. 40: The billionaire tax has fallen behind

What it does. A one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California billionaires. Unlike an income tax, it reaches the value of stock, private businesses and collectibles, including gains that haven't been sold. Real estate and some retirement assets are excluded. Ninety percent of the money goes to health care, and the rest to education and food assistance.

The tax applies to anyone who was a California resident on January 1, 2026, not on Election Day. That provision is central to the measure, and it's one reason passage would almost certainly bring litigation. Six billionaires reportedly left before the cutoff.

The LAO projects a temporary gain in the tens of billions of dollars, offset by a possible ongoing income tax loss of under $1 billion a year as some billionaires leave or change behavior. Proponents' $100 billion estimate is their number, not a guaranteed collection.

Who's lined up. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West is the sponsor and main funder. Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna are prominent backers, and the California Democratic Party has endorsed (by a hair).

But Gavin Newsom, Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton all oppose it. So do the California Teachers Association, the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood affiliates, firefighters and the building trades. Newsom has pitched a national billionaire tax aimed at loans taken out against assets as his alternative.

That split is what's moving the numbers. These groups give the No side messengers voters won't dismiss as the wealthy protecting their fortunes. Their argument: California would collect a large sum once while eroding the income tax base that funds programs every year. Supporters answer that federal health care cuts are arriving now, and critics haven't offered another way to cover them.

Polling. Both October polls have it losing. PPIC's Mark Baldassare said support has declined "particularly among Democrats and independents." In the Bay Area, PPIC found support fell from 58% to 49%. What's left of the Yes coalition is younger, lower-income and more Latino. In PPIC's survey, 70% of likely voters 18 to 34 support it. IGS's Mark DiCamillo noted that undecided voters tend to break no, and the IGS undecided pool is down to 8%.

Money. Building a Better California, the committee bankrolled largely by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, has raised $333.1 million. Brin alone has put in at least $102 million.

The SEIU-UHW committee backing 40 and opposing 41 and 42 has raised $32.9 million, one fund for all three fights.

Our read. Prop. 40 is now more likely to fail than pass. A new tax polling below 50% a week out rarely recovers, and the No side has the money to keep pressing through Election Day. The Yes campaign's path runs through younger and Latino voters, the groups where support is strongest and midterm turnout is usually weakest. Early returns, which skew older and toward homeowners aren't likely to help.

Props. 41 and 42: The countermeasures are now the bigger question

Opponents never counted on defeating Prop. 40 alone. They also funded two constitutional amendments that could block it and would reshape California's tax rules well beyond this election.

How they interact with Prop. 40. The conflict rule only kicks in if Prop. 40 and a countermeasure both pass. In that case, the one with more yes votes wins. So Prop. 40 can win a majority and still lose. Expect litigation either way.

With Prop. 40 trailing, the scenario we flagged three weeks ago is now the one to plan around: voters reject the billionaire tax and approve one or both restrictions anyway. That would do more than defeat one tax. It would narrow the state's options for future revenue measures.

Prop. 41 pairs an accountability message with a real fiscal restriction. It requires the State Auditor to review new special taxes before the election and audit the programs they fund afterward, including identifying possible cuts. It also voids new taxes, enacted after January 1, 2026, that exempt their revenue from the state spending limit. Prop. 40 has that exemption, so it would conflict automatically. Supporters include CalCPA, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers Association. SEIU-UHW and Sanders oppose it.

Prop. 42 is the more direct ban. It prohibits new state taxes on owning personal property, including businesses, investments and art, and bars retroactive taxes. It doesn't repeal income taxes or touch capital gains taxes when assets are sold.

Supporters include California Professional Firefighters, the State Building and Construction Trades Council and AMVETS. Its public pitch is about protecting savings and retirement, which can reach voters who would never owe Prop. 40.

Polling. This is where IGS saw the biggest movement. Voters who were undecided in September have mostly broken no.

• Prop. 41: PPIC 48% to 49% (was 51–44). IGS 38% to 47% (was 37–33).
• Prop. 42: PPIC 51% to 47% (was 54–43). IGS 43% to 45% (was 43–34).

Money. Yes on 41 has reported $58.4 million and Yes on 42 $128 million. Opposition committees have reported about $22.7 million against each, almost all of it the same SEIU-UHW fund.

Our read. Prop. 42 is the one to watch. It's the better-funded of the two, its savings-and-retirement pitch reaches voters who would never owe the billionaire tax, and it's the only one still above 50% in either poll.

Prop. 41 looks weaker. For clients, a Prop. 42 win would be the most durable result on this ballot. It's a constitutional amendment, so undoing it would take another statewide vote.

Prop. 3: Keeping an existing tax is easier than creating a new one

What it does. Makes permanent the higher income tax rates voters approved in 2012 and later extended. They otherwise expire in 2031. It's called the "millionaire's tax," but the threshold starts at about $371,000 for individuals, adjusted for inflation. The official estimate is that it keeps $5 billion to $15 billion a year in state revenue once the current authorization would have run out.

This isn't a rate increase, and a No vote wouldn't pull money from next year's budget. The question is whether an existing revenue stream becomes permanent.

Who's lined up. CTA leads the campaign, joined by education and labor groups, the state PTA, Planned Parenthood affiliates and the California Medical Association.

Opponents include the California Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.

Polling. IGS 54% to 37% (was 54–34). PPIC 58% to 41% (was 58–40).

Money. Committees supporting it have reported $81.1 million. CTA is the top donor.

The only opposition committee, sponsored by the California Taxpayers Association, has reported $5,500.

Our read. Prop. 3 barely moved while Prop. 40 fell, which is about the clearest sign voters are separating an existing tax from a new one. Continuity, familiar beneficiaries and a lopsided money fight make it the safest tax measure on the ballot.

It's a useful reminder that opposing the billionaire tax isn't the same as opposing higher taxes on wealthy Californians. CTA and CMA are making that distinction explicitly, and voters appear to be following.

Prop. 43: A compromise its own author wants voters to reject

What it does. Raises the vote needed to pass citizen-initiated local special taxes, those dedicated to a specific purpose like housing, transit or public safety, from a simple majority to two-thirds, starting January 1, 2027. Special taxes placed on the ballot by local governments already need two-thirds.

It came out of a deal that pulled a broader Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association initiative off the ballot. That version would have also cut real estate transfer taxes and revoked some taxes already passed by simple majority, such as LA's "mansion tax." Assemblymember Buffy Wicks wrote the compromise language, then said days later that she's "adamantly opposed" to it.

Who's lined up. Howard Jarvis and the California Business Roundtable support it.

Cities, labor (including California Professional Firefighters) and affordable housing advocates oppose it.

Polling. IGS 36% to 46% (was 31–40, with 29% undecided). PPIC 42% to 55% (was 43–51).

Money. Yes has reported $16.4 million, with about $10 million of the early money from the Business Roundtable's PAC. No has reported $10.4 million.

Our read. Likely to fail. Undecided voters in IGS split close to evenly, which isn't enough for a measure that started 9 points down. Its real impact, if it somehow passed, would fall on the next round of local funding measures, since it doesn't apply retroactively.

Prop. 1: A familiar housing investment with a real price tag

What it does. Authorizes $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds: $10 billion for affordable housing and homeownership programs and $1.25 billion for CalVet home loans. The money goes to affordable rental construction, supportive housing, preserving existing affordable homes and down payment help.

This is conventional state borrowing. The official estimate is $500 million to $600 million a year for about 25 years in repayment costs. The veterans' share is repaid mostly through borrowers' mortgage payments, so the General Fund cost comes mainly from the $10 billion piece. It doesn't come with a new tax, but debt service competes with everything else in the General Fund.

Who's lined up. Housing groups, veterans' advocates, teachers and carpenters support it. No argument against it was submitted for the voter guide, and no opposition committee has formed.

Polling. PPIC 60% to 38%, up from 55% to 43% in September.

Money. Three Yes committees have reported $15.3 million. No opposition committee.

Our read. Favored, and gaining. Supporters still need voters to picture homes that actually get built, but with no funded opposition there's no one making the counterargument.

Prop. 37: Homebuyer help, without General Fund debt

What it does. Creates a program offering eligible buyers loans covering up to 17% of the price of a newly built home, with buyers putting down at least 3%. Homes must be priced under roughly $1.5 million, household income can't exceed twice the area median, and buyers must live in the home.

The financing is what sets it apart from Prop. 1. Prop. 37 authorizes up to $25 billion in revenue bonds repaid through borrowers' mortgage payments, not by the state. The official fiscal estimate is no direct state or local cost.

Who's lined up. Former Senate leader Bob Hertzberg is a leading advocate. Realtors, carpenters, nurses and Treasurer Fiona Ma support it. No organized opposition has emerged.

Polling. PPIC 65% to 32%, the highest on the ballot, up from 61% to 35%.

Money. Two Yes committees have reported $33.6 million, including $18.4 million to the Realtor-sponsored committee.

Our read. Strongly favored. The real questions come after it passes: whether lenders and bond buyers participate on good terms, how many eligible new homes exist and how much it actually lowers a buyer's monthly cost.

Prop. 38: The criticism hasn't reached voters

What it does. Authorizes $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research. Half goes to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit institute. The other half funds research grants. The official estimate is $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years in debt service, possibly offset by revenue from successful research. Those offsets aren't guaranteed.

The controversy. The fight is over whether the eligibility rules effectively hand half the money to the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which physician and inventor Gary Michelson co-founded.

CalMatters reporting found it's the only institute that appears to meet the criteria. 

Polling. PPIC 57% to 41%, up from 55% to 42%.

Money. The main Yes committee has reported $58.2 million, and a separate Michelson nonprofit committee another $13 million.

The opposition has reported about $12,000.

Our read. Favored. 

Prop. 39: Voter ID is losing ground

What it does. Requires government-issued ID to vote in person. Mail voters would have to write the last four digits of a designated government ID number on the return envelope, or the ballot is invalid.

Who's lined up. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio and Reform California are leading the effort, with the state Republican Party and Howard Jarvis on board. Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein has given $17 million.

Opponents include the ACLU, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the California Democratic Party. Becerra and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas formed a joint committee to raise money for the No side, and Sen. Alex Padilla is campaigning against it. The No campaign is tying the measure directly to Donald Trump.

Polling. PPIC 41% to 58%. DiCamillo said, "I think Trump is a factor." 

Money. Yes has reported $36.6 million.

Opposition committees have reported $33.6 million, the closest money fight on the ballot.

Our read. Likely to fail. The No side has nearly matched the Yes side's money, and its effort to make this a referendum on Trump is working. Support for voter ID in the abstract still hasn't turned into support for this measure.

These three got through the Legislature without a campaign to sell them to voters. Two of them gained ground anyway.

Prop. 2: Saving more is the easiest reform to explain

What it does. Raises the point where required deposits into the state's main rainy day fund stop, from 10% to 20% of General Fund taxes. That's a higher ceiling on the balance, not a requirement to deposit 20% of revenue every year. It also requires bigger deposits in years with unusually strong capital gains revenue, extends required extra debt payments from 2030 to 2040, and takes reserve deposits out of the state spending limit calculation.

Who's lined up. Newsom, Becerra, Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, California Professional Firefighters and the LA Area Chamber of Commerce support it.

Critics, led by Assemblymember David Tangipa, argue that pulling deposits out of the spending limit weakens fiscal constraints and reduces the odds of taxpayer rebates.

Polling. PPIC 61% to 38% (was 60–39).

Money. Minimal. No committee has registered with the Secretary of State on either side.

Our read. Favored. It builds a bigger cushion. It doesn't fix the structural gap between revenue and spending.

Prop. 4: Public financing is closer than it looked

What it does. Repeals the 1988 ban on public financing of campaigns, letting the state and more local governments set up voluntary programs. Candidates would have to meet eligibility rules and accept spending limits. It doesn't automatically send public money to every candidate.

Who's lined up. Sen. Tom Umberg wrote it. The California Democratic Party, California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the California Clean Money Campaign support it. The California Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis and Reform California oppose using public money for political campaigns.

Polling. IGS has it tied at 41% to 41%, with 18% undecided (was 35–35 with 30% undecided). PPIC has it losing 45% to 52% (was 42–53).

Money. Two Yes committees have reported about $985,000. No opposition committee.

Our read. Still uphill, but closer. Undecided voters are splitting evenly in IGS rather than breaking no, a better sign for supporters than September suggested. It still trails in PPIC, and a measure without a campaign usually needs a cushion it doesn't have.

Prop. 5: The biggest jump on the ballot, with no campaign

What it does. Removes the replacement-candidate question from recall ballots. Voters would decide only whether to remove the official. How the seat gets filled depends on the office:

• Governor: a special election if the recall happens in the first two years of the term; the lieutenant governor finishes the term if it happens in the last two.
• Legislators: a special election within about four months.
• Other statewide officers: the governor appoints a replacement until the next regular election.

Who's lined up. Former Sen. Josh Newman, who was recalled in 2018, the League of Women Voters and California Common Cause support it. Opponents see it as taking the choice of replacement away from voters and protecting incumbents.

Polling. PPIC 45% to 52%, up from 35% to 59% in September.

Money. None. No committee has registered on either side.

Our read. Uphill, but gaining. A 10-point move with no money behind it more likely reflects voters taking cues from who's behind it than any persuasion. Treat it with caution until another poll confirms it.

Prop. 44: The clinic spending fight is now a rout

What it does. Requires nonprofit federally qualified community health centers to spend at least 90% of revenue on program services each year, with penalties if they fall short. These clinics are already nonprofits required to reinvest revenue in their operations.

Who's lined up. SEIU-UHW, the same union behind the billionaire tax, is the sole sponsor.

Opponents include the California Primary Care Association, the California Medical Association, the California Hospital Association, Planned Parenthood affiliates, and the California Democratic, Republican and Working Families parties.

The Primary Care Association has also filed a federal complaint accusing the union of using ballot measures to pressure clinics, which the union calls "categorically false."

Polling. PPIC 25% to 71%, down from 34% to 61%.

Money. Yes $16.9 million. No $38.6 million.

Our read. Likely to fail, and by a wide margin. With SEIU-UHW's attention on Prop. 40, there's no sign of a late push.

Prop. 45: Support has slipped below 50%

What it does. The biggest change to the California Environmental Quality Act in decades. For projects designated "essential," including housing, energy, water, roads, broadband, health care and wildfire projects, it sets environmental review deadlines of about 365 business days, requires courts to rule on lawsuits within 270 days, limits courts' ability to block a whole project and lets applicants study one alternative instead of several. It doesn't repeal CEQA or automatically approve anything.

The LAO estimates initial state costs in the high tens of millions of dollars a year, possibly over $100 million, for at least the first several years.

Who's lined up. The California Chamber of Commerce is leading the campaign, backed by the state Republican Party, the California Building Industry Association, the California Hospital Association, the California Primary Care Association and the California Water Association. 

Opponents include the California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation, the California Nurses Association, the Sierra Club and environmental justice groups, a coalition of more than 550 organizations. 

Polling. PPIC 46% to 50%, down from 49% to 46% in September and 73% in July (with different question wording). A majority of Republicans support it, while 54% of Democrats and half of independents oppose it.

Money. Four Yes committees have reported $38.6 million. Five No committees have reported $31.2 million, up from about $21 million when we last wrote. Wendy Schmidt gave $10 million to the No side, per Ballotpedia.

Our read. Now leaning no. Opponents closed most of the money gap, the data center argument is landing, and Democratic voters are sorting against it. For clients that build things, a loss here would push CEQA reform back to the Legislature in 2027, where lawmakers already passed targeted changes in 2025.

Five days out, the shape of the result is coming into focus. On taxes, the likeliest outcome is that voters keep the existing high-earner tax, reject the billionaire tax and leave the countermeasures as the real cliffhangers. If Prop. 42 passes, a constitutional limit on taxing wealth would outlast this election by years.

Beyond taxes, the housing measures and the rainy day fund look safe, voter ID and the clinic measure look headed for defeat, and Prop. 45 has moved from toss-up to leaning no.

Two things to keep in mind on election night. First, California counts slowly, and late ballots have tended to skew younger and more Democratic in recent elections. Early returns may overstate support for 41, 42 and 45 and understate support for 40. Second, counties have about a month to finish counting, so close calls on the countermeasures may not be settled for weeks.

The question is less which measures win than which revenue sources and approval processes will be on the table when the next governor and Legislature start work in 2027.