California statewide propositions

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

Considerations: Housing supply; homelessness prevention; veterans; renters; first-time buyers; state debt.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): State budget reserves would be higher.

Considerations: Budget stability; essential services during downturns; debt; flexibility in future budgets.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031.

Considerations: School resources; health care; tax policy; long-term revenue stability.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Ongoing costs to the state of a few hundred thousand dollars each year for the Fair Political Practices Commission to answer questions from state and local governments about public campaign finance programs.

Considerations: Candidate access; private money; taxpayer safeguards; program design.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Net fiscal effect unknown. In the event of a recall, savings or costs of millions of dollars to administer the election depending on the office recalled.

Considerations: Continuity of representation; vacancy duration; appointment authority; election administration.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): No direct state or local costs.

Considerations: Eligibility; homeownership access; new construction; monthly affordability; geographic availability.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.

Considerations: Medical research; public debt; allocation of research funds; access to resulting treatments.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.

Considerations: Voting access; acceptable identification; privacy; election security; voter education.

From our social campaign: Proposition Spotlight on Prop 39.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires.

Considerations: Health funding; revenue volatility; taxpayer behavior; program accountability.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): The net fiscal effect is unknown as it depends on future decisions by voters, the Legislature, and other policymakers.

Considerations: Transparency; program performance; administrative cost; budget flexibility.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.

Considerations: Taxpayer protections; savings and investment; limits on future revenue choices.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Possibility that local government tax revenues will not go up as much in the future due to a higher vote threshold for certain taxes.

Considerations: Local services; approval thresholds; fire, roads, schools, hospitals, housing and other designated uses.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.

Considerations: Clinic access; administrative spending; patient services; enforcement.

Fiscal effect (Legislative Analyst): Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.

Considerations: Project speed; community participation; environmental health; legal review; infrastructure.