What's on California's ballot in the 2026 midterm election? A voter's guide to the statewide races
California voters will decide the state's next governor, choose candidates for several other statewide offices and weigh in on 14 propositions when they head to the polls on Tuesday.
The ballot includes proposals on wealth taxes, affordable housing, state budget reserves, election rules, homeownership, medical research and environmental regulations.
Here's what you need to know about the statewide races on the California ballot.
Governor
Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton are competing to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is barred by term limits from seeking another term.
Becerra, a former California attorney general, served as U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services under the Biden administration. He also represented a Los Angeles-area congressional district for 24 years. Becerra's most notable endorsements include Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris.
Hilton is a former Fox News host who served as an adviser to former British Prime Minister David Cameron. Hilton has been formally endorsed in the race by President Trump.
Both candidates have centered their campaigns on affordability, though each has introduced vastly different proposals to address rising costs for residents.
Becerra and Hilton have differed in their approaches to lowering the state's gas prices, California's environmental policies, homelessness, healthcare and collaborating with the federal government on immigration.
Lieutenant governor
Democrat Fiona Ma and Republican Gloria Romero are running for lieutenant governor.
The lieutenant governor is first in the line of succession to the governor and serves in several state government roles, including as president of the state Senate, casting tie-breaking votes when necessary. The officeholder also serves on boards overseeing higher education.
Attorney general
California Attorney General Rob Bonta is facing Republican Michael Gates in Tuesday's election for the state's top law enforcement post.
Bonta, a Democrat, is seeking a second full term. Gates, a former Huntington Beach city attorney, has campaigned on public safety, including full enforcement of Proposition 36.
Bonta has been a leading figure in California's legal battles against the Trump administration. His reelection campaign also emphasizes gun violence prevention, consumer protections and reproductive rights.
Gates served as Huntington Beach's elected city attorney for a decade and in 2025 worked in the Trump administration for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. His campaign calls for stronger prosecution of repeat offenders, increased support for law enforcement and greater local control over housing decisions.
Secretary of State
Incumbent Democrat Shirley N. Weber and Republican Donald P. Wagner are competing in the race for secretary of state.
The secretary of state is California's chief elections officer, responsible for overseeing statewide elections, maintaining election-related records and administering campaign finance and lobbying disclosure requirements. The office also handles business filings and other official state records.
Weber's campaign has emphasized strengthening election security, protecting voting rights and maintaining access to voting. Wagner's campaign has also focused on election security, offering his support of Proposition 39, which aims to introduce new voter ID requirements. Weber has opposed that measure. Wagner has also pushed for faster results during the ballot counting process.
Insurance commissioner
Democrats Jane Kim, a former San Francisco supervisor, and state Sen. Ben Allen are competing to become California's next insurance commissioner. The office is responsible for regulating the state's insurance industry, enforcing insurance laws and addressing consumer complaints.
The next commissioner will take office as California continues to grapple with rising insurance costs, wildfire-related losses and insurers limiting or withdrawing coverage in parts of the state.
The candidates have offered different approaches to addressing the insurance market, including questions about affordability, consumer protections and the availability of coverage.
Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara was unable to run for re-election due to term limits.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Richard Barrera and Sonja Shaw are competing to become California's next superintendent of public instruction, succeeding Tony Thurmond, who reached his term limit.
The superintendent is the state's elected chief public school officer and leads the California Department of Education. The office oversees the implementation of state education policies and works with school districts and other education agencies.
Barrera is board president of the San Diego Unified School District, the nation's second-largest district, and has been endorsed by Thurmond. Shaw is a Chino Valley school board president who has been endorsed by Hilton and the Republican Party.
Shaw has vowed to cut bureaucratic waste, demand fiscal transparency and protect fairness in sports for girls. Her district was previously sued by California for adopting a gender notification policy.
Barrerra has touted his district's gains in graduation rates and various academic levels and said he looks forward to improving similar advancements across the state, if elected.
The position is nonpartisan, meaning candidates do not run under party labels on the ballot.
Board of Equalization
California voters will elect members of the State Board of Equalization, which oversees certain tax programs and provides property tax oversight and assistance to county assessors. It is the only board of its kind in the nation.
The board has four elected district members, and voters will choose a candidate for the district in which they live. The candidates on an individual ballot will depend on the voter's location.
Proposition 1: Authorizes $11.25 billion in bonds for housing affordability programs
Proposition 1 would authorize the state to borrow $11.25 billion for housing programs, including affordable rental housing, supportive housing, homeownership and down-payment assistance, veterans' home loans, and housing for farmworkers, tribal communities and students.
The proposal includes funding to build and rehabilitate rental housing and preserve existing affordable units.
A yes vote would allow the state to issue the bonds. A no vote would prevent the borrowing.
The state is expected to pay between $500 million and $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the bonds.
Proposition 2: Increases California's rainy day fund
Proposition 2 would change the rules around California's state budget reserves and payments toward certain debts, increasing the amount held in the state's rainy day fund.
The reserve fund is intended to help the state maintain essential services during economic downturns, when tax revenues may fall.
A yes vote would change how the state saves money and pays down debt, resulting in higher reserves and requiring additional debt payments for a longer period. A no vote would leave the existing rules in place.
Supporters, including Newsom and Becerra, say the measure would better protect funding for education, healthcare and public safety during economic downturns. No formal opposition was submitted against the measure, though some critics argue that it could limit taxpayer rebates and weaken the effect of the state's constitutional spending limit.
Proposition 3: Makes a high-income tax increase permanent to fund schools and healthcare
Proposition 3 would make permanent an existing increase in state income tax rates for high-income earners. The tax applies to individuals earning more than a threshold initially set at $371,000 and adjusted annually for inflation.
The existing tax increase is set to expire in 2031. If approved, Proposition 3 would extend it indefinitely, maintaining an estimated $5 billion to $15 billion in annual state income tax revenue.
A yes vote would make the tax increase permanent. A no vote would allow it to expire in 2031 under current law.
Supporters including the California Teachers Association and California State PTA say the measure would protect funding for schools and healthcare. Opponents, which include the California Taxpayers Association and California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, argue that making the tax permanent would increase the long-term tax burden and that the state should address spending concerns first.
Proposition 4: Allows public financing of election campaigns
Proposition 4 would repeal California's ban on state and local governments providing public funding for political campaigns.
If approved, local governments could create their own public campaign financing programs, subject to restrictions on the use of public money. Funds earmarked for education, transportation and public safety could not be used for those programs.
A yes vote would allow state and local governments to create qualifying public financing programs. A no vote would leave the existing ban in place.
Supporters including the League of Women Voters of California and the California Nurses Association say the measure could limit the power and influence of private funding in elections. Opponents, which include the California Taxpayers Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argue that public money should not be used to finance political campaigns.
Proposition 5: Changes the process for filling vacancies after statewide recall elections
Proposition 5 would change how California fills vacancies when voters recall a statewide elected official.
Under the current system, voters decide whether to remove an official and select a replacement in the same election. The measure would separate those decisions, generally providing for a subsequent special election or an appointment.
A yes vote would remove the replacement candidate question from recall elections. A no vote would preserve the current process.
Supporters say the change would prevent a replacement from winning with only a small share of the vote and could reduce the political and administrative costs of recall elections. Opponents argue that it would take the decision away from voters at the time of a recall and could leave offices vacant while a replacement is selected.
Proposition 37: Creates a loan program for middle-income homebuyers
Proposition 37 would authorize up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund a state homebuying assistance program for eligible middle-income Californians purchasing newly built homes.
The program would provide fixed-rate loans covering up to 17% of a qualifying home's purchase price. Eligible buyers would have to meet income requirements, occupy the home as their residence and make a down payment of at least 3%.
A yes vote would establish the program and authorize the bonds. A no vote would prevent the state from being required to create it.
The measure's proponents say it would make homeownership more accessible without directly relying on taxpayer-funded bond repayments. The bonds would be repaid through borrowers' mortgage payments.
No formal opposition argument was submitted against the measure, though at least one critic, the League of Women Voters, has said Proposition 37 would fail to confront racial barriers to wealth-building and lower overall costs for families.
Proposition 38: Authorizes bonds for immunology medical research
Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund research into immunology and immunotherapy, including efforts to prevent and treat diseases.
The measure comes in wake of billions of dollars worth of federal funding cuts for medical research at medical facilities and universities.
Supporters say the investment could advance medical research and lead to new treatments. Critics argue the measure would create decades worth of bond debt for taxpayers and question whether the proposed approach would direct resources too narrowly, according to the state voter guide.
A yes vote would authorize the bonds and the associated research funding. A no vote would prevent the state from issuing bonds for the proposed program.
Proposition 39: Requires government-issued identification to vote
Proposition 39 would amend the state Constitution to introduce new voter ID requirements for in-person and mail voting.
The measure would prohibit citizens from voting in elections unless they present government-issued identification that matches their voter registration. The measure also includes requirements for election officials related to verifying citizenship.
A yes vote would establish the proposed identification and verification requirements. A no vote would leave existing election rules in place.
Supporters say the measure would strengthen election security and increase public confidence in voting. Opponents argue that the requirements could create barriers for eligible voters who lack the required documents and that existing safeguards already protect election integrity.
Proposition 40: Imposes a one-time wealth tax on billionaires
Proposition 40 would impose a one-time, 5% tax on California residents with assets totaling at least $1 billion, with revenue primarily intended to support healthcare.
The measure has become a major point of debate over how California should raise money for public services and how much of the tax burden should fall on the state's wealthiest residents.
Supporters estimate the measure would generate $100 billion over five years, with 90% of the revenue going toward healthcare programs and the remaining 10% supporting education, food assistance and tax administration.
Supporters, including the California Democratic Party and SEIU Healthcare Workers West, say the tax would help offset federal healthcare funding cuts enacted in 2025 under H.R. 1, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." They argue that billionaires who have benefited from California's economy should contribute more to help protect hospitals, clinics and Medi-Cal services.
Opponents include Newsom, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, the California Medical Association and the California Teachers Association. A coalition of billionaires has also formed in opposition to the measure. They warn that the tax could prompt wealthy residents to leave California, potentially reducing state tax revenue over time.
A yes vote would enact the proposed tax. A no vote would reject it.
Proposition 41: Restricts certain new state taxes and requires audits of special taxes
Proposition 41 would limit the state's ability to enact certain new taxes that exempt revenue from California's constitutional spending limit. It would also require audits of new special tax proposals before they're placed on the ballot.
A yes vote would establish the proposed restrictions and auditing requirements. A no vote would leave the existing rules in place.
Supporters say the measure would strengthen fiscal accountability and limit the state's ability to avoid constitutional spending restrictions. Critics argue that the proposal could restrict future state revenue options and interfere with other tax measures, including the proposed billionaire wealth tax under Proposition 40.
If both Proposition 40 and Proposition 41 pass, Proposition 40 could be invalidated if Proposition 41 wins more votes.
Proposition 42: Prohibits new state personal property taxes and certain retroactive taxes
Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on personal property and financial assets, and restrict certain retroactive state taxes.
A yes vote would establish the proposed tax restrictions. A no vote would leave existing law unchanged.
Supporters say the measure would protect personal savings and property, like retirement accounts, from new state taxes. Opponents argue that the measure's sole purpose is to undo Proposition 40.
Like Proposition 41, Proposition 42 was placed on the ballot by opponents of Proposition 40 and would invalidate the wealth tax measure if both pass and Prop. 42 receives more votes.
Proposition 43: Limits voters' ability to raise revenue for local government services
Proposition 43 would change the rules for approving certain local special taxes, requiring two-thirds voter approval for all local special taxes, including some taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.
Currently, some special taxes proposed by citizen initiatives can be approved with a simple majority.
A yes vote would apply the two-thirds threshold more broadly. A no vote would preserve the existing rules.
Supporters say the measure would protect taxpayers by requiring a higher level of voter support for local tax increases. Opponents argue that it would make it harder for communities to fund services such as transportation, housing, public safety and other local priorities.
Proposition 44: Requires community health clinics to spend 90% of revenue on program services
Proposition 44 would require qualifying community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on program services that advance their charitable purpose.
The measure targets federally funded community health centers and seeks to establish a minimum share of revenue that must go toward services rather than other expenses.
A yes vote would enact the spending requirement. A no vote would leave the current rules in place.
Supporters say the measure would ensure more money goes directly toward patient care and community health services. Opponents raise concerns about imposing a rigid spending threshold on clinics that face different operating costs and financial needs.
Proposition 45: Modifies environmental review for certain projects
Proposition 45 would change environmental review requirements for certain development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA.
The measure is intended to change how qualifying projects, which are deemed "essential," move through the environmental review process, a system that can affect the cost and timeline of housing and infrastructure development. Essential projects include but are not limited to housing, healthcare facilities, clean energy, police and fire stations, and education facilities.
A yes vote would implement the proposed changes. A no vote would leave current environmental review requirements in place.
Supporters say changes could reduce delays and costs for qualifying projects. Opponents argue that changes to environmental review could weaken protections for communities and the environment.
