Like the rest of the country, California cast its ballots on Tuesday. Unlike the rest of the country, we’re taking our sweet, infuriating time counting the vote. With just over 60% of the statewide tally in, the results suggest that California has settled on a characteristically Californian approach to its housing crisis: voters approved $36.25 billion in housing bonds, then appear to have rejected Prop. 45, the CEQA reform that would put a clock on the currently interminable environmental review. Money to build homes? Absolutely. Making it easier to build them? Let's not get carried away here!

The ill-conceived billionaire wealth tax, meanwhile, appears headed for the dustbin, proving that Californians can still find a tax they don't like. And let’s be clear, there was a lot to dislike about this hamfisted attempt to secure one-time goodies at the cost of long-term revenues. That’s precisely why NCC figures, led by CEO Tracy Hernandez, took to the ramparts to rally against the initiative in the media, via statewide Zoom calls with our partner initiatives, and with opinion makers around the state.

This week, we're dispensing with our usual format to survey the wreckage and the triumphs, starting with every statewide proposition before turning to the local measures in California's largest cities (population 150,000+) that touch our “core four” issues.

A note on the numbers: Statewide counts reflect the latest Associated Press figures available as of Thursday evening, Nov. 5, including AP's estimate of the share of votes counted. Local counts come from county registrars as reported Wednesday and Thursday. "Leading" and "trailing" indicate races that have not been called. All results remain unofficial, and counties have until Dec. 3 to certify.

Statewide propositions

1.    Prop. 1: Affordable housing bond

Authorizes $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for multifamily affordable housing, veterans' home loans and housing for young people.

Result: Yes 4,685,016 (59.6%)  |  No 3,175,059 (40.4%)  |  61.1% of votes counted. Passed (called by AP).

Why it matters: Housing is the first among equals in the NCC's core four, and voters were willing to pay for more of it. How far $11.25 billion goes depends on what each unit costs to build, and in California that cost is set as much by process and permitting as by materials. (Yes, we’re foreshadowing a little bit here. Read on.)

2.    Prop. 2: Rainy day fund

Raises the cap on the state's budget reserve from 10% to 20% of general fund revenue and changes how deposits count toward the state spending limit.

Result: Yes 4,871,930 (60.1%)  |  No 3,236,337 (39.9%)  |  62.2% of votes counted. Passed (called by AP).

Why it matters: NCC board members Pete Weber and Chris Thornberg made the case for bigger reserves in CalMatters this spring. California’s revenue leans heavily on high earners and capital gains, so it surges in good years and drops sharply in bad ones. In 2022, a $165 billion revenue overestimate created what looked like a $98 billion surplus, and lawmakers committed much of it to new spending. Doubling the reserve cap lets the state save more of the next windfall. Weber and Thornberg argued for a 50% cap, so Prop. 2 is a first step. The Legislative Analyst’s Office projects structural deficits of $18 billion next year and as much as $35 billion after that, and a bigger reserve is one of the few tools that can soften them.

3.    Prop. 3: High-earner income tax extension

Renews the extra income tax rates on top earners first approved under Prop. 30 in 2012, with revenue going to education and early-childhood programs.

Result: Yes 4,736,246 (59.1%)  |  No 3,283,764 (40.9%)  |  61.4% of votes counted. Passed (called by AP).

Why it matters: The extension keeps the state budget dependent on a small number of very high earners, and that makes revenue rise and fall with the stock market. The same voters also approved Prop. 2's bigger rainy day fund, which is the right hedge against that volatility.

4.    Prop. 4: Public financing of campaigns

Allows state and local governments to publicly fund election campaigns, subject to eligibility and spending rules.

Result: Yes 3,806,902 (48.4%)  |  No 4,052,534 (51.6%)  |  60.6% of votes counted. No is leading; not called.

5.    Prop. 5: Recall elections

Eliminates the replacement-candidate question in recalls of state officers. Vacancies would be filled under existing law.

Result: Yes 3,858,401 (50.6%)  |  No 3,769,047 (49.4%)  |  60.0% of votes counted. Yes is narrowly leading; not called.

6.    Prop. 37: Homebuyer assistance bond

Authorizes $25 billion in bonds for a state second-mortgage program to help first-time buyers with down payments.

Result: Yes 4,855,185 (61.3%)  |  No 3,067,165 (38.7%)  |  60.9% of votes counted. Passed (called by AP).

Why it matters: Down payment help puts more buyers in the market. If the number of homes for sale doesn't grow with them, more buyers can push prices up. The payoff from Prop. 37 depends on whether California builds enough supply to meet the demand it creates.

7.    Prop. 38: Immunology research bond

Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research.

Result: Yes 4,406,167 (55.4%)  |  No 3,540,547 (44.6%)  |  61.0% of votes counted. Yes is leading; not called.

8.    Prop. 39: Voter ID

Requires voters to show identification and requires election officials to verify citizenship using government records.

Result: Yes 3,518,369 (40.7%)  |  No 5,133,358 (59.3%)  |  63.7% of votes counted. Failed (called by AP).

9.    Prop. 40: Billionaire wealth tax

Imposes a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of Californians with more than $1 billion in assets as of Jan. 1, 2026. Most of the revenue would go to healthcare, with the rest going to food assistance and education.

Result: Yes 3,928,206 (45.4%)  |  No 4,733,204 (54.6%)  |  63.8% of votes counted. No is leading; not called.

Why it matters: The reactionary, knee-jerk nature of Prop. 40 ran counter to the measured, long-term organizational philosophy of the NCC. For this reason alone, we hated it. A majority of voters appear to agree. The Legislative Analyst's Office projected that the tax could raise tens of billions of dollars over several years, and that it would also cost the state income tax revenue every year after the billionaires left. Trading permanent revenue for a one-time payment would have been a bad deal, and it would have told every founder and investor in the state that more taxes like it could follow.

10. Prop. 41: Accountability for new special taxes

Requires programs that receive revenue from new special taxes to eliminate their lowest-performing programs and reinvest the savings. The measure was written to conflict with Prop. 40, so if both pass, the one with more votes takes effect.

Result: Yes 3,738,043 (47.1%)  |  No 4,199,403 (52.9%)  |  61.0% of votes counted. No is leading; not called.

Why it matters: NCC President and CEO Tracy Hernandez wrote forcefully in favor of Prop 41 because programs funded by new taxes should have to show results. It looks likely to fall short. Its role as a backstop against Prop. 40 probably won't be needed though, since Prop. 40 is losing on its own.

11. Prop. 42: Ban on taxing personal assets

Prohibits new taxes on certain retirement holdings, personal savings and individually owned assets. Like Prop. 41, it conflicts with Prop. 40, and the measure with more votes would prevail.

Result: Yes 4,273,690 (54.0%)  |  No 3,637,705 (46.0%)  |  61.3% of votes counted. Yes is leading; not called.

Why it matters: Prop. 42 leads Prop. 40 by about 345,000 yes votes, so it would block the wealth tax even if both passed. It would also make any future wealth tax far harder to enact, which gives people who build and invest in California one less reason to look at Austin or Miami.

12. Prop. 43: Two-thirds vote for local special-tax initiatives

Requires two-thirds voter approval for special taxes placed on local ballots by citizen initiative, and restricts certain property taxes.

Result: Yes 3,491,550 (44.8%)  |  No 4,298,231 (55.2%)  |  60.8% of votes counted. No is leading; not called.

13. Prop. 44: Health clinic spending

Requires federally qualified health centers and related organizations to spend at least 90% of their revenue on mission-related activity.

Result: Yes 1,443,086 (18.1%)  |  No 6,531,425 (81.9%)  |  61.4% of votes counted. Failed (called by AP).

14. Prop. 45: CEQA review deadlines

Would put something almost unheard of in California's environmental review process: a deadline. Projects deemed "essential," including most housing, water, energy, transportation and public facilities, would get 365 business days for environmental review, with courts given 270 days to resolve legal challenges. The reviews would remain. The indefinite waiting would not.

Result: Yes 3,543,070 (45.7%) | No 4,210,969 (54.3%) | 60.6% of votes counted. No is leading; not called.

Why it matters: This one stings. California desperately needs new housing, more water storage and a modern energy grid. It also maintains a legal framework under which a single lawsuit can leave an essential project gathering dust for years. Prop. 45 promised to bring some discipline to that absurdity. Opponents warned of an environmental apocalypse if government agencies and courts were required to finish their work on a schedule. Apparently, enough voters bought it. The fight now returns to Sacramento, where lawmakers exempted most urban infill housing from CEQA in 2025. They should apply the same urgency to water and energy infrastructure. California has mastered the art of identifying its most pressing needs. Perhaps someday it will get around to meeting them.

Local measures

Measures in cities with 150,000 or more residents, categorized by policy area. Two regional water measures that cover Oxnard and Santa Rosa are included and labeled.

Housing

Los Angeles: Charter Amendment PL

Revises the city's planning appeals process, City Council review procedures and the city's authority over floor-area rules.

Result: Yes 512,424 (70.6%)  |  No 213,268 (29.4%). Passing.

Why it matters: Every extra appeal is another chance to stop a project after it has been approved. In a city that needs every unit it can get, cleaning up the process counts as housing policy.

Los Angeles: Measure TE

Gives a one-time exemption from the Measure ULA transfer tax to residential properties damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire, as long as they are sold within five years of the fire.

Result: Yes 485,328 (63.5%)  |  No 278,914 (36.5%). Passing.

Why it matters: Voters agreed that fire victims trying to sell and move on shouldn't pay a "mansion tax" designed for luxury sales. The exemption also concedes something about ULA itself. The tax has raised far less than promised, in part because owners hold off on selling, and Los Angeles can't fix that one disaster at a time.

San Francisco: Proposition B

Authorizes a city-owned municipal finance corporation that could later become a public bank. Affordable housing and clean energy lending are proposed uses, but the measure provides no startup funding.

Result: Yes about 120,900 (51.2%)  |  No 48.8%, per Thursday afternoon's count. Yes has moved into the lead by more than 5,000 votes; not called.

Why it matters: Backers are selling cheaper financing for affordable housing. But the measure creates a structure with no money behind it, and the City Controller estimates its cost at $310 million to $460 million over eight years, at a time when the city faces a deficit. If the lead holds, supervisors will have to decide whether this is the best use of scarce dollars.

San Francisco: Proposition C

Changes the formula for the city's annual contributions to its Housing Trust Fund, growing them to $125 million a year and letting the Board of Supervisors pause contributions in bad budget years.

Result: Yes 138,152 (79.9%)  |  No 34,852 (20.1%). Passing.

Why it matters: Prop. C drew support from both Mayor Daniel Lurie and progressive housing groups, a rare alliance in San Francisco. Its pause provision gives the city room to manage a downturn, which is the kind of budget flexibility the NCC would like to see more often.

San Francisco: Proposition I

Dedicates half of the transfer tax revenue from property sales of $10 million or more to subsidized housing and homelessness prevention, and locks those rates in place.

Result: Yes 86,194 (45.3%)  |  No 104,258 (54.7%). Trailing; not called.

Why it matters: San Francisco's transfer tax on large sales is already among the highest in California. Locking it in would have made big projects even harder to finance. Voters appear to prefer Prop. C's more flexible approach.

Salinas: Measure H

Asks voters to approve the City Council's 2025 repeal of the city's rent stabilization (a 2.75% annual cap), just-cause eviction, tenant anti-harassment and rental registry ordinances.

Result: Yes 8,013 (40.9%)  |  No 11,580 (59.1%). The repeal is trailing, so the ordinances would stay in place.

Why it matters: Rent caps protect tenants who already have a lease, but they tend to discourage new rental construction. That was the concern the council cited when it voted to repeal. If the ordinances stay, Salinas should pair them with faster permitting so new supply keeps coming.

Water & Energy
‍
Oxnard area: United Water Conservation District Measure D (districtwide)

Authorizes $350 million in general obligation bonds for water supply, conservation and water quality projects, repaid through property taxes. Requires two-thirds approval.

Result: Yes 42,124 (68.9%)  |  No 18,990 (31.1%). Above the two-thirds threshold; not called.

Why it matters: Capturing more stormwater and recharging groundwater basins is the kind of supply investment California has put off for decades. At 68.9%, the measure clears the bar by about two points, so the late ballots matter.

Santa Rosa area: Sonoma County Measure H (countywide)

Continues an existing one-eighth-cent sales tax for regional and city parks, water supply and stream protection, and wildfire risk reduction. Requires two-thirds approval.

Result: Yes 73,100 (76.6%)  |  No 22,298 (23.4%). Well above the two-thirds threshold.

Why it matters: This is a renewal at the current rate with citizen oversight, which is the kind of tax voters tend to support. Parks get most of the money, and water protection gets a smaller share.

Jobs and homelessness

Neither issue earned a standalone ballot measure in any of California's cities with populations above 150,000. San Francisco's Prop. B (above) includes clean energy lending among its proposed uses, while Oakland's Measure FF (below) came with an advisory vote on directing some of its revenue toward interim homeless shelters.

The more revealing story may be data centers, which touches jobs, water and energy alike. In Alhambra (population 82,500), roughly 82% of voters approved an outright ban, following Monterey Park's lead in June. Restrictions passed in nearly every community that voted on the issue Tuesday.

The concerns about electricity and water demand are legitimate. The response, apparently, is to prohibit the facilities rather than figure out how to accommodate them. California wants the economic rewards of the AI revolution, but seems considerably less enthusiastic about the infrastructure required to power it. Other states will be happy to collect the investment and tax revenue. They'll even send a thank-you note.

Taxation

Los Angeles: Measure FD

Adds a half-cent sales tax to fund the Los Angeles Fire Department, raising an estimated $345 million a year and lifting the city's rate to 10.75%.

Result: Yes 430,576 (53.7%)  |  No 371,505 (46.3%), as of Thursday morning. Passing; NBC Los Angeles has projected approval.

Why it matters: After the Palisades Fire, voters were willing to pay for a stronger fire department. They'll now pay one of the highest sales tax rates in the state, and sales taxes fall hardest on lower-income households. The city can collect the tax only if it maintains the Fire Department's existing budget share, and that rule needs to be strictly enforced.

Santa Ana: Measure N

Makes permanent the city's 1.5-cent sales tax, approved in 2018 as Measure X, which was scheduled to drop in 2029 and expire in 2039. It raises about $84 million a year.

Result: Yes 30,632 (67.4%)  |  No 14,793 (32.6%). Passing.

Why it matters: Santa Ana voters chose to keep funding city services over a scheduled tax cut. With no end date, the city owes them clear annual reporting on what the money buys.

Fresno: Measure D

Imposes a half-cent general sales tax for 10 years, raising about $65 million a year, to replace the expiring countywide Measure C within city limits. It ends early if voters approve a countywide replacement.

Result: Yes 57.7%  |  No 42.3%, ahead by more than 10,000 votes as of Wednesday. Passing. (Raw totals were not available.)

Why it matters: Countywide Measure S, the transportation tax that Measure D was meant to back up, is trailing with about 47%. If those results hold, Fresno keeps its road money and the rest of the county loses it, a split that will make regional transportation planning harder.

Salinas: Measure G

Renews the city's existing 1-cent sales tax for city services, which was set to expire at the end of the decade.

Result: Yes 14,949 (77.5%)  |  No 4,341 (22.5%), in early returns. Passing.

Why it matters: The tax supplies roughly a fifth of Salinas's general fund. Renewing it avoids a budget hole that city staff put at more than $40 million a year.

Oakland: Measure FF

Removes most foreclosure-related exemptions from the city's real property transfer tax, raising an estimated $4 million to $13 million a year.

Result: Yes 56,505 (79.3%)  |  No 14,753 (20.7%). Passing.

Why it matters: Closing a loophole that let lenders avoid the tax by foreclosing is sound policy. A companion advisory vote points the money toward interim shelter, which Oakland badly needs, but the council isn't bound by it.

San Francisco: Proposition J

Removes the transfer tax exemption for commercial, industrial and large residential properties transferred through foreclosure.

Result: Yes 135,129 (79.1%)  |  No 35,793 (20.9%). Passing.

Why it matters: City leaders paired Prop. J with a plan to lower transfer taxes on large housing developments, using the foreclosure revenue to offset the cut. If both pieces land, San Francisco ends up with a transfer tax that does less damage to housing construction.

The bottom line

This week, voters showed they will pay for housing and public safety. The NCC's job over the next two years is to make sure that money actually builds something, and that starts with fixing the rules that make building so slow and expensive in California. Counting continues through early December, and some of these results will change. We'll keep you posted as races are called.

See you next week!