In contrast to the clown show of politics, actually filling out a ballot is very tedious. I believe in filling out the entire ballot, but I also believe in being informed about what I vote for, so that means taking time out of my day to at least try to do some research, though I may moan and groan about it.

So here’s my walkthrough of the 2026 California ballot.

Insurance Commissioner

LA Times has a fairly neutral article on the two candidates Ben Allen and Jane Kim. The key issue seems to be regulating property insurance. Kim is advocating some transformational changes, while Allen is focused on improving the efficiency of the current system. Transformational changes can be good, but only if they’re good, so how do I judge? On this reddit thread, the consensus is that Kim doesn’t really know what she’s doing, and is likely to make the market worse by chasing insurance providers out of the state, which is a thing they’re already doing.

Board of Equalization, District 2

Most news sources will explain that the Board of Equalization is a nothing office. After corruption scandals a decade ago, it was stripped of most of its power. So it doesn’t really matter! I think the best I can hope for is that a BoE candidate might use it as a stepping stone into some other minor office that actually does something. So I’m inclined to kick out the incumbent Salley Lieber so she can do something else. I also found an article from GrowSF that seemed to like the challenger John Pimentel.

California Superintendent of Public Instruction

Although I said I believe in filling out the entire ballot, I make a few considered abstentions, usually relating to school. I feel like maybe people with kids should make those decisions. I quickly looked up this contest, and I found that Sonja Shaw has been culture-warring against transgender girls. Let’s put her in the “no” column and vote for Richard Barrera.

Judges

I think people should just vote yes on most judges, because in principle they should be non-partisan positions. That said, some years ago I found out that I voted for a judge who was involved in a scandal, so now I at least make an effort to verify that none of them are involved in scandals. They all checked out.

All the other candidates

I’m skipping over the local elections, although I do vote on those!

A lot of the other contests are between one Democrat vs one Republican. You know what to do, vote against the fascists. We spend so much time talking about this, let’s not waste further time here, and move onto the propositions.

Proposition 1

In the context of California politics, everyone is a Democrat, so we find other things to disagree about. I tend to be a pro-housing partisan. So I pay attention to the endorsements from California Yimby. This year, they have some detailed analysis of several propositions, which I quite liked and will cite at every opportunity.

Proposition 1 is a measure to fund housing subsidies. This is a good measure that makes housing more affordable without negatively affecting the housing supply. CA Yimby explains why this is good policy, and how it compares to alternatives.

Proposition 2

This is the “rainy day fund” proposition. CA Yimby explains the context. The “Gann Limit”, enacted in 1979, limits California state spending. This mucks with California’s ability to save on some on good years and spend more on bad years. This proposition gives them more flexibility, and just seems like sensible budget reform.

Proposition 3

Since 2012, voters have approved a temporary tax on the top 2% earners.  (That’s $371k per year for individuals, or $743k per year for joint-filers.  Despite our household being very wealthy, this is well above our range.) This proposition is to make those taxes permanent. Yeah, sounds good to me.

Proposition 4

This proposition allows state and local governments to provide public funding for election campaigns. Theoretically, this should lower the barrier to entry for candidates, allowing them to lean on public funding instead of big donors. Although, it’s not clear if actually works out that way in practice. Nobody seems to have a strong arguments either way about this one.  I think it sounds reasonable.

Proposition 5

Proposition 5 is a procedural change in recall elections (i.e. a vote to remove someone from office). Currently, if there is a recall, then it gets paired with an election for a new candidate. The proposition changes it so it follows normal succession rules: the governor appoints someone, or there’s a special election. I think pairing a recall with a re-election likely muddies both questions. For instance, suppose a Democrat were undergoing recall, the people who most favor the recall might be Republicans.  So the candidate who pulls ahead might be a Republican. But then Democrats might not support the recall even though the Democrat being recalled is genuinely bad. So I’ve argued myself into a yes.

Proposition 37

This proposition creates a subsidized home loan program. My initial reaction was negative. We don’t need more benefits to homeowners, an already privileged class. CA Yimby had a more measured analysis, pointing out that because the loans only apply to new housing, it could in principle encourage more housing construction. However, even CA Yimby seemed skeptical of the policy’s efficiency, and offered no recommendation. I’m going with my initial prejudice and voting no.

Proposition 38

This is a bond for immunology research. Without passing judgment on the research, I don’t think it should be funded via state proposition. LA Times explains that the proposition is written so that very few research institutes actually qualify for the proposed grant; it’s basically a grant for one specific institution. If the research is so good, let it go through a normal grant process.

Proposition 39

This proposition imposes ID requirements for voting. I think this subject has already gotten a lot of discussion but: voter ID requirements are nominally intended to reduce fraud, but this is a form of fraud that doesn’t occur much to begin with. In practice, this creates additional obstacles to voting, which disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups. The ACLU has further arguments.

Proposition 40

This is a one-time billionaire wealth tax. The advantage of a one-time tax is that it theoretically avoids people dodging the tax by moving out of state. The disadvantage is that the revenue is temporary. CA Yimby had a pretty long analysis, explaining that it doesn’t really avoid people moving out of state, because now you just have that looming threat that the state will do it again. Also, the fact that it’s a wealth tax is problematic, because wealth is far more mobile than income. There’s a link to an economic study suggesting that specifically in the California context, this would decrease tax revenue. If we want a wealth tax, it needs to be on the federal level, not state level.

Proposition 41

This proposition “prohibits new state taxes that exclude revenues from state spending limit” and “requires audits for new state special taxes.” I think that’s referring to the same “Gann Limit” discussed in relation to proposition 2. The internet tells me this was specifically designed to nullify proposition 40. Although I’m no on 40, I am not in favor of erecting more barriers against taxes.

Proposition 42

This proposition “prohibits new state personal property taxes and certain retroactive state taxes.” So, another proposition designed to nullify prop 40? I’m already no on 40, we don’t need these extra procedural changes that rule it out entirely.

Proposition 43

This proposition requires local governments get a supermajority of votes to increase taxes. This seems like a very bad idea. CA Yimby explains some of the context, discussing voter measures that proved bad for housing. For example, in 2022 Los Angeles voters taxed real estate transactions over $5 million, which was marketed as a progressive “mansion tax”, but in practice is a regressive tax applying to apartment buildings. Still, this is a reactionary procedural change, and even CA Yimby opposes it.

Proposition 44

This requires community health clinics spend 90% of revenue on program services. This seems overly specific, and an improper subject for a state proposition. Also, I think the division between service expenses and administrative expenses is a bit artificial–one way to improve services is by hiring staff. If there is a problem with community health clinic budgets, I’m sure there are better measures than this.

Proposition 45

This proposition amends the CEQA environmental review process for certain public projects, generally making it easier to get through. CA Yimby has an analysis of this one too, but says it’s about much more than housing, an doesn’t endorse anything. While the measure makes it easier to push housing projects through, there’s already a CEQA exemption for “infill” housing.  So the proposition favors more “sprawl” housing, which even Yimby has mixed feelings about.  Also, there are substantive environmental concerns about building housing in areas at risk of fire. On the other hand, supporters say CEQA is being used to delay clean energy infrastructure. Feeling ambivalent about this one but leaning no.