Proposition 1 would authorize a bond to fund housing affordability programs.

Placed on the ballot by: The Legislature

Our position: Weak Yes

Our reasoning: We see this as a worthwhile proposal for voters who are comfortable with using bonds to fund these programs.

Spending in support as of October 6: $12.8 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $0

Proposition 2 would increase California’s Rainy Day Fund, the state’s budget reserve.

Placed on the ballot by: The Legislature

Our position: Yes

Our reasoning: No argument

Spending in support as of October 6: $0

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $0

Proposition 3 would make permanent a tax on high incomes that supports public education.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: Weak Yes

Our reasoning: Continuing a tax that people already pay may be easier to support, and public education needs funding.

Spending in support as of October 6: $46.2 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $5,500

Proposition 4 would lift the ban on public financing of campaigns, allowing local governments to establish public financing programs within specific limits.

Placed on the ballot by: The Legislature

Our position: Yes

Our reasoning: Allowing public financing could encourage grassroots campaigns.

Spending in support as of October 6: $235,157

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $0

Proposition 5 would separate the election to recall an officeholder from the election to choose a replacement.

Placed on the ballot by: The Legislature

Our position: Yes

Our reasoning: Separating the elections would remove conflicts of interest and ensure that elected replacements receive at least 50% of the vote.

Spending in support as of October 6: $0

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $0

Proposition 37 would authorize a bond to fund mortgages for middle-income buyers purchasing new houses.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: No

Our reasoning: We see this as a substantial benefit to construction companies and believe California should continue exploring other ways to address the housing crisis.

Spending in support as of October 6: $19.6 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $0

Proposition 38 would authorize a bond to fund immunology research.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: No

Our reasoning: We do not believe California should take out loans that channels half of the funds to one institution based on arbitrary criteria chosen by the proposition authors. Grants for medical research should be awarded through a competitive process that gives all competitors an equal chance.

Spending in support as of October 6: $64.2 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $3,782

Proposition 39 concerns voter identification requirements. The source table does not describe the specific requirements.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: Strong NO

Our reasoning: We view this as an attack on voting rights.

Spending in support as of October 6: $15.8 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $29.6 million

Proposition 40 would establish a tax on billionaires. The source table does not specify the tax rate or how the revenue would be used.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: Undecided

Our reasoning: The proposal would likely face litigation. If it survives those challenges, we see it as a start toward making billionaires pay their fair share. “Building a Better California” is the largest opposition contributor.

Spending in support as of October 6: $32.2 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $100 million

Proposition 41 is described as a countermeasure to Proposition 40, the billionaire tax proposal.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: No

Our reasoning: The amount spent in support raises concerns for us.

Spending in support as of October 6: $58.4 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $703,494

Proposition 42 is also described as a countermeasure to Proposition 40, the billionaire tax proposal.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: No

Our reasoning: The amount spent in support raises concerns for us.

Spending in support as of October 6: $111 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $703,494

Proposition 43 would set a two-thirds approval threshold for local special taxes.

Placed on the ballot by: The Legislature

Our position: No

Our reasoning: We believe requiring a two-thirds majority reduces the power of an individual vote. However, it would make the threshold consistent with that for special taxes proposed by local governments.

Spending in support as of October 6: $10 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $8 million

Proposition 44 would limit overhead expenses at community health clinics by requiring 90% of revenue to be spent on services.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: No

Our reasoning: Requiring 90% of revenue to go toward services sets a high bar and is very restrictive.

Spending in support as of October 6: $10.8 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $21.6 million

Proposition 45 would shorten environmental review for many construction projects by setting time limits on the review process.

Placed on the ballot by: Petition

Our position: Weak No

Our reasoning: Some worthwhile construction projects may be delayed by environmental review, but we do not believe setting time limits will encourage good outcomes.

Spending in support as of October 6: $40 million

Spending in opposition as of October 6: $18.9 million