CALIFORNIA ADVOCACY • FEDERAL ADVOCACY • GRANT WRITING
Sacramento • Washington, D.C.
Northern California• Central California• Southern California
MEMORANDUM
From Townsend Public Affairs
Date: July 17, 2026
Subject: November Ballot Update: Statewide Initiatives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
California's November 3, 2026 statewide ballot was finalized on June 25, 2026, marking the constitutional deadline for citizen initiatives to qualify for the November election and the final opportunity for proponents to withdraw qualified measures through negotiated agreements. The weeks leading up to the deadline were defined by extensive negotiations among the Governor's Office, Legislative Leadership, initiative proponents, business organizations, labor groups, taxpayer advocates, and local government stakeholders, resulting in significant changes to the measures voters will consider this November.
For local agencies, the most consequential outcome was the negotiated withdrawal of the proposed Taxpayer Protection Act (Initiative 1983). In its place, the Legislature approved ACA 22, which appears on the November ballot as Proposition 43. If approved by voters, the measure would amend the California Constitution to require all local special taxes, including those proposed through the citizen initiative process, to receive two-thirds voter approval. As part of the same agreement, the Legislature approved ACA 21, removing ACA 13 from the ballot. While the agreement eliminated provisions affecting charter city real estate transfer taxes and the retroactive invalidation of certain existing local taxes, Proposition 43 preserves one of the initiative's central policy objectives and could significantly affect future local and regional revenue measures.
Additional negotiations also reshaped the ballot. Competing healthcare initiatives were withdrawn pursuant to an agreement between healthcare stakeholders and the California Labor Federation, while competing rideshare liability initiatives were removed following a settlement between Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California. Meanwhile, a broader debate over statewide taxation remains on the ballot through competing measures addressing a one-time tax on ultra-high-networth individuals, restrictions on future wealth taxes, and new accountability requirements for statewide special taxes.
As a result of these negotiations, California voters will consider 14 statewide measures in November, consisting of five legislative measures and nine citizen initiatives. The ballot includes measures affecting affordable housing, state finances, local taxation, election administration, campaign finance, environmental review, healthcare, and constitutional governance.
This memorandum provides an overview of the final statewide ballot, summarizes the negotiations that shaped its composition, and highlights the measures with the greatest potential implications for California local governments.
QUALIFIED STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES
PROPOSITION 1: Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026 Proposition 1 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature through SB 417 and would authorize the State to issue $11.25 billion in general obligation bonds for affordable housing and veterans’ housing programs.
Of the total bond authorization, $10 billion would support affordable housing programs, while $1.25 billion would support the CalVet Home Loan Program. The affordable housing funding would be administered through existing and expanded state housing programs and would support activities such as the development, rehabilitation, preservation, and acquisition of affordable rental and ownership housing.
The measure is intended to provide a substantial new infusion of state housing resources at a time when many existing housing programs are oversubscribed or nearing exhaustion. Funding could support housing for lower-income households, people experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, veterans, and other populations facing barriers to obtaining stable housing.
The specific timing and allocation of bond funding would depend on subsequent state budget appropriations, program guidelines, and implementation decisions by state housing agencies.
Even if the measure is approved, the entire $11.25 billion would not be available immediately.
Bond funding would likely be appropriated over several fiscal years. Because the bonds would be repaid from the State General Fund, the measure would also create long-term state debt-service obligations.
PROPOSITION 2: Save for California’s Future Act
Proposition 2 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature through ACA 20 and would amend the California Constitution to modify the State’s budget reserve requirements.
The measure would increase the constitutional limit on the State’s Budget Stabilization Account, commonly referred to as the Rainy-Day Fund, from 10 percent to 20 percent of annual General Fund revenues. The objective is to allow the State to retain a larger reserve during periods of revenue growth so that additional resources are available during recessions, revenue downturns, emergencies, or future budget deficits.
California’s revenue structure is particularly sensitive to changes in personal income, capital gains, and the financial markets. As a result, state revenues can increase rapidly during strong economic periods and decline substantially during downturns. Increasing the reserve limit is intended to reduce the need for abrupt program reductions, borrowing, payment deferrals, or other budget-balancing actions when revenues fall.
The measure would not raise taxes or immediately require the State to deposit the full amount permitted under the higher reserve limit. Rather, it would increase the amount the State is constitutionally permitted to retain and would operate within the State’s broader reserve and budget framework.
PROPOSITION 3: Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care Through the Existing Tax on High Incomes
Proposition 3 is an initiative constitutional amendment that would make permanent the higher personal income tax rates originally approved by voters in 2012.
The existing tax applies to higher-income taxpayers and is currently scheduled to expire in 2031.
The income thresholds are adjusted annually for inflation. Based on the thresholds included in the official ballot summary, the rates apply to taxable income above approximately $360,000 for single filers, $490,000 for heads of household, and $721,000 for joint filers, using 2024 income levels.
Proposition 3 would remove the 2031 expiration date and continue the tax rates indefinitely.
Revenue attributable to the measure would be allocated 89 percent to kindergarten through grade 12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges. Local school boards would retain authority to determine how their allocated funding is spent, and the measure would prohibit the funds from being used for administrative costs.
The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that the measure would maintain between $5 billion and $15 billion annually in state revenue, measured in today’s dollars, that would otherwise end after 2031. The amount collected in any year would fluctuate significantly because high-income tax collections are affected by wages, business income, capital gains, and financial market conditions.
Although the measure is presented primarily as an education funding proposal, continuing the tax could also affect the broader State General Fund. Maintaining these revenues could reduce pressure on other state-funded programs, including health care, housing, homelessness, transportation, and local assistance. Conversely, opponents may argue that permanently extending the tax could affect taxpayer behavior, business decisions, or the State’s dependence on volatile high-income tax revenue.
PROPOSITION 4: California Fair Elections Act of 2026
Proposition 4 was placed on the ballot through SB 42 and would amend the Political Reform Act to permit state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs.
Existing provisions of the Political Reform Act generally prohibit public officers from spending public funds, and candidates from accepting public funds, for the purpose of seeking elective office. Proposition 4 would remove that statewide prohibition and allow the State and local jurisdictions to establish public financing systems if they choose to do so.
The measure would not automatically create a statewide public financing program, provide funding for candidates, or require a city or county to establish such a program. Instead, it would give state and local governments the legal authority to develop programs through which qualifying candidates could receive public campaign funds, subject to locally or legislatively established eligibility requirements, contribution limits, expenditure rules, disclosure requirements, and enforcement provisions.
Potential public financing models could include matching small-dollar contributions, providing campaign grants, or issuing democracy vouchers or similar forms of public support. The precise structure would be determined separately by each participating jurisdiction.
For cities and counties, the principal effect would be the restoration of local discretion. A jurisdiction interested in public campaign financing would still need to adopt a program, identify a lawful funding source, establish administrative and enforcement procedures, and comply with applicable election laws.
Supporters contend that public financing can reduce candidates’ reliance on large donors and encourage a broader range of individuals to seek office. Opponents may question whether public funds should be used for political campaigns or whether such programs provide sufficient public benefit. SB 42 was enacted subject to voter approval because it amends provisions of the voterapproved Political Reform Act.
PROPOSITION 5: Recall of State Officers
Proposition 5 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature through SCA 1 and would change the process used to replace a statewide elected officer who is removed through a recall election.
Under California’s current recall system, voters are generally asked two questions on the same ballot. The first asks whether the officer should be recalled. The second asks which replacement candidate should serve if the recall is successful. A replacement candidate can win with a plurality of votes, even if that candidate receives fewer votes than the number of voters who opposed recalling the incumbent.
Proposition 5 would eliminate the replacement-candidate portion of a recall election for state officers. If voters approve a recall, the office would become vacant and would be filled under the succession or vacancy procedures that otherwise apply to that office. For example, if a Governor were recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would succeed to the office. Vacancies in other statewide or legislative offices would be filled in accordance with the applicable constitutional or statutory process.
The measure is intended to simplify recall elections and address concerns that an official who was elected by a statewide majority could be replaced by a candidate receiving only a relatively small plurality. It would not eliminate the public’s power to recall state officers, alter the signature requirements for qualifying a recall, or apply to recalls of local officials unless otherwise provided by law.
PROPOSITION 37: Middle-Income Homebuyer Loan Program
Proposition 37 is an initiative statute that would authorize up to $25 billion in bonds to establish a home loan program for qualifying middle-income buyers purchasing newly constructed homes or certain converted properties.
The program would provide eligible buyers with a fixed-rate mortgage covering up to 17 percent of the purchase price of a qualified home. The assistance would be available for newly constructed homes or the first sale of qualifying properties converted from non-residential use.
To qualify, an applicant would generally have to be a California resident for at least one year, intend to occupy the property as a primary residence, have household income below 200 percent of area median income, and provide a down payment of at least 3 percent.
Eligible home prices would be capped at approximately $1 million to $1.5 million, depending on the county, with the limits adjusted annually. Because housing costs vary considerably across California, the applicable maximum would be determined geographically.
The measure states that the bonds would be repaid through mortgage payments made by participating homeowners rather than through the State General Fund. Accordingly, the official fiscal estimate identifies no direct state or local government costs. However, the ultimate financial performance of the program would depend on loan repayments, interest rates, defaults, administrative costs, and housing market conditions.
The measure would not directly require cities to approve new housing developments or change local land-use standards. Its primary effect would be to expand financing assistance for eligible buyers and potentially stimulate the production and purchase of qualifying homes.
PROPOSITION 38: Bonds for Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Proposition 38 is an initiative statute that would authorize $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research.
The bond proceeds would be divided equally between two purposes. Half would be allocated to a University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health. The other half would support a competitive grant program for public or nonprofit universities and research institutions.
The measure would require that at least half of the research funding be directed toward cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. It would also impose conditions related to the pricing and availability of technologies and drugs developed using bond proceeds. Research recipients would be required to make resulting technologies and drugs available in California at prices at least 20 percent below the national average price.
Unlike Proposition 37, these bonds would be repaid from the State General Fund. The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that repayment would cost approximately $500 million annually for 25 years. The State could potentially recover some costs if funded research produces commercially successful discoveries, but such revenues are uncertain.
The principal policy consideration is whether the State should incur long-term general obligation debt to finance medical research, particularly where the benefits and potential commercial returns cannot be predicted in advance.
PROPOSITION 39: Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements Proposition 39 is an initiative constitutional amendment that would establish additional identification and citizenship verification requirements for California voters.
Under current law, an individual registering to vote must declare under penalty of perjury that the individual is a United States citizen and provide identifying information such as a birthdate, driver’s license number, state identification number, or partial Social Security number.
Proposition 39 would additionally require voters appearing at a polling place to present government-issued identification. A person voting by mail would be required to provide the last four digits of a government-issued identification number.
The State would be required to provide voter identification cards to eligible voters upon request.
Elections officials would also be required to issue annual reports identifying the percentage of registered voters in each county whose citizenship has been verified.
The measure would significantly affect county elections officials, who administer elections on behalf of the State. Counties would need to modify voting systems, ballot materials, voter education programs, poll-worker training, vote-by-mail procedures, provisional ballot processes, and citizenship verification systems.
The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate one-time state and local costs in the tens of millions of dollars to prepare for implementation. Ongoing costs could range from tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on how the identification, reporting, outreach, and verification requirements are implemented.
The measure could also result in litigation concerning voter access, implementation standards, acceptable forms of identification, provisional voting, and the State’s responsibility to provide identification at no cost.
PROPOSITION 40: One-Time Tax on Certain Individuals and Trusts Proposition 40 is an initiative constitutional amendment and statute that would impose a one-time tax of up to 5 percent on individuals and trusts with covered assets exceeding $1 billion.
Covered assets would include businesses, securities, investment holdings, artwork, collectibles, and intellectual property. Real property and certain pension and retirement accounts would be excluded.
The measure would allocate 90 percent of the revenue to health care programs and 10 percent to food assistance or education-related programs. It would prohibit the State from using the new revenue to replace existing funding for those purposes, meaning the money would generally be required to supplement rather than supplant current appropriations.
The measure would also exempt the new revenue from certain constitutional requirements, including the Proposition 98 school-funding guarantee, state budget reserve requirements, and the State Appropriations Limit.
The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance estimate that the tax could generate tens of billions of dollars over several years. However, they also estimate that the measure would likely result in an ongoing reduction in state personal income tax revenue of hundreds of millions of dollars or more annually. This could occur if affected taxpayers move, restructure assets, change residency, or otherwise reduce future taxable income in California.
The measure does not impose a local tax or provide unrestricted revenue directly to local governments. Nevertheless, funding for health care, food assistance, and education could flow through county-administered or locally delivered programs.
The measure could also have broader state budget implications. If the tax produces substantial short-term revenue but reduces ongoing income tax collections, the State could experience both an immediate funding increase and longer-term revenue losses.
Proposition 40 remained on the ballot despite efforts by state leaders and other organizations to negotiate its withdrawal before the June 25 deadline.
PROPOSITION 41: Audits of Programs Funded by State Special Taxes and State SpendingLimit Requirements Proposition 41 is an initiative constitutional amendment concerning statewide special taxes, program audits, and the State Appropriations Limit.
For a special tax proposed through the statewide initiative process, the measure would require an audit of the programs proposed to receive the tax revenue before the election. The audit would provide voters with information regarding the performance, administration, or financial condition of those programs before they decide whether to approve the tax.
The measure would also require recurring audits of programs funded by state special taxes enacted after January 1, 2026. The audit findings would likely be included in or referenced through future voter information materials and public reports.
In addition, Proposition 41 would prohibit the enactment of new state taxes that exclude their revenue from the existing voter-approved State Appropriations Limit. The restriction would apply to taxes enacted after January 1, 2026, including taxes appearing on the November 2026 ballot.
This provision could directly interact with Proposition 40 because the billionaire wealth tax proposes to exempt its revenue from the State Appropriations Limit. The outcome and legal interaction of the two measures could depend on which receives more affirmative votes if both are approved and their provisions are determined to conflict.
The official fiscal impact is unknown. Costs or savings would depend on the number of future special tax initiatives, the programs subject to audit, the extent of audit recommendations, and whether those recommendations produce operational savings.
PROPOSITION 42: Prohibition on New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive Taxes
Proposition 42 is an initiative constitutional amendment that would restrict the State’s authority to impose certain future taxes.
The measure would prohibit new state taxes on the ownership or control of personal property.
The definition would encompass financial assets, investment accounts, retirement accounts, business interests, intellectual property, and other forms of personal property.
The measure would also prohibit certain retroactive state taxes. A tax generally could not be applied to conduct, activities, ownership, transactions, or taxpayer status that occurred before the tax’s effective date, subject to limited exceptions.
The restrictions would apply to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026, including taxes appearing on the November 2026 ballot.
The measure appears designed in part to prevent the State from adopting wealth taxes or assetbased taxes similar to Proposition 40. If both Propositions 40 and 42 are approved, the measures could conflict because Proposition 40 would impose a tax based on covered assets, while Proposition 42 would prohibit new state taxes on the ownership or control of personal property.
The legal effect could depend on constitutional rules governing conflicting ballot measures, including which measure receives more affirmative votes.
The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance identify the fiscal effect as the possibility that state tax revenues would be lower in the future. The measure would not necessarily reduce revenue collected under current taxes, but it would limit the Legislature’s and voters’ options for establishing certain new taxes later.
The measure applies to state taxation and would not directly prohibit local property, sales, parcel, utility, or other local taxes. Its indirect significance for local agencies would arise if future state revenue limitations reduce the resources available for state-local programs or increase pressure on existing revenue sources.
PROPOSITION 43: Local Taxes and the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement Proposition 43 was placed on the ballot through ACA 22 and would amend the California Constitution to require approval by two-thirds of voters for local special taxes, including special taxes proposed through the local initiative process.
A special tax is a tax whose proceeds are dedicated to one or more specified purposes. Examples may include taxes dedicated to transportation, public safety, libraries, parks, housing, homelessness programs, emergency response, or other identified services.
Local government-sponsored special taxes are already generally subject to a two-thirds voterapproval requirement. However, following the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, appellate decisions concluded that certain constitutional procedural restrictions applying to local government-sponsored measures did not necessarily apply in the same manner to measures placed on the ballot through the citizens’ initiative power.
That created a pathway under which some voter-sponsored special taxes could be approved by a simple majority.
Proposition 43 would close that distinction by expressly applying the two-thirds vote requirement to special taxes proposed by the electorate through the initiative process. As a result, a citizensponsored special tax would be subject to the same voter-approval threshold as a special tax placed on the ballot by a city council, county board of supervisors, or other local governing body.
Proposition 43 emerged from negotiations concerning the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s broader Taxpayer Protection Act. The original initiative would have imposed additional restrictions, including limitations involving real estate transfer taxes and retroactive invalidation of certain previously approved taxes. Under the negotiated agreement, HJTA withdrew that initiative after the Legislature placed ACA 22 on the ballot and removed ACA 13.
For local governments, Proposition 43 is among the most significant measures on the 2026 ballot.
Requiring two-thirds approval for all local special taxes would make voter-sponsored dedicated revenue measures more difficult to approve. The effect could be particularly significant for regional
measures, where reaching two-thirds approval across a large and politically diverse geography can be challenging.
The measure would not raise taxes or invalidate all existing special taxes. Rather, it would establish the approval threshold that future local special tax measures must meet. Local agencies contemplating future revenue measures should evaluate how Proposition 43 could affect measure structure, timing, polling, coalition development, and whether revenue is proposed as a general or special tax.
PROPOSITION 44: Community Health Clinic Spending Requirements Proposition 44 is an initiative statute that would require nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers to spend at least 90 percent of their revenue on program services advancing their charitable purposes.
Federally Qualified Health Centers provide primary and preventive care in medically underserved communities and frequently serve patients who are uninsured, enrolled in Medi-Cal, or otherwise face difficulty accessing health care.
Under Proposition 44, qualifying program expenditures could include patient care and other services that directly advance a clinic’s charitable mission. No more than 10 percent of revenue could generally be used for management, administration, overhead, and other non-program expenses.
The California Department of Public Health would be authorized to waive the requirement in exceptional circumstances. The Attorney General could issue guidance defining which expenses qualify as program services and which are considered management or overhead.
Clinics that fail to comply could face monetary penalties. Those penalties could be refunded if the clinic comes into compliance within five years. The measure would also authorize criminal penalties for false reporting or schemes intended to artificially inflate a clinic’s reported programspending ratio.
The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance estimate that state enforcement costs could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Much of that cost could be offset by fees and penalties imposed on affected entities.
If clinics reduce administrative expenses to satisfy the 90 percent standard, the measure could direct more resources toward patient care. At the same time, clinics may argue that the limitation could constrain legitimate expenditures for compliance, technology, workforce administration, facilities, billing, quality assurance, and other functions necessary to operate health care organizations.
PROPOSITION 45: Environmental Review for Certain Projects Proposition 45 is an initiative statute that would amend the California Environmental Quality Act to expedite environmental review and litigation for specified categories of projects.
The measure would apply to many housing, transportation, water, health care, and clean-energy projects. For covered projects, it would establish deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review and take required actions.
The measure would also limit the extent to which an agency must evaluate a range of feasible project alternatives. Under existing CEQA procedures, an environmental impact report generally evaluates alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental effects. Proposition 45 would narrow that obligation for covered projects in an effort to reduce the time and cost associated with environmental documentation.
In addition, the measure would change judicial review of covered project approvals. It would establish deadlines for filing and resolving CEQA lawsuits and limit the evidence courts may consider and the remedies courts may order.
For cities, counties, transit agencies, water districts, joint powers authorities, and other lead or responsible agencies, Proposition 45 could substantially alter environmental review procedures.
Agencies would need to revise internal practices, consultant contracts, hearing schedules, document preparation timelines, and litigation strategies.
The measure could accelerate the approval and construction of housing, transit, water infrastructure, renewable energy, and health care projects. It could also reduce administrative and legal costs over the long term by limiting the scope and duration of environmental review and litigation.
However, the deadlines could create near-term staffing and implementation challenges. Agencies may need to complete complex reviews more quickly, coordinate with applicants and other responsible agencies under shorter timeframes, and ensure that abbreviated processes remain legally defensible.
The Legislative Analyst and Department of Finance estimate state and local implementation costs in the tens of millions of dollars annually during the first several years. Over time, state and local governments would likely experience net savings from reduced administrative and legal workload, although the precise fiscal effects are uncertain. The effect on state courts could range from savings in the tens of millions of dollars to costs in the low tens of millions annually.
Proposition 45 is likely to be particularly significant for local agencies with substantial housing, infrastructure, transportation, water, or clean-energy project portfolios. It could create faster project-delivery tools, but agencies would need detailed implementation guidance to understand which projects qualify and how the new review and litigation requirements interact with other environmental, land-use, coastal, endangered species, and permitting laws.
NEGOTIATIONS AND WITHDRAWALS OF MEASURES
California's November 3, 2026 statewide ballot was finalized on June 25, the constitutional deadline for citizen initiatives to qualify for the November election and the final day proponents could voluntarily withdraw qualified measures. In the days leading up to the deadline, negotiations among the Governor's Office, Legislative Leadership, initiative proponents, taxpayer advocates, labor organizations, business groups, healthcare interests, and local government stakeholders significantly reshaped the ballot.
Ultimately, six qualified initiatives were withdrawn through negotiated agreements, while one additional initiative failed to qualify because county signature verification extended beyond the constitutional deadline. These negotiations reduced the number of statewide measures before
voters and, in several cases, replaced broad initiative proposals with narrower legislative compromises.
Taxpayer Protection Act Agreement
The most consequential agreement involved Initiative 1983, the Taxpayer Protection Act, sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The initiative proposed sweeping changes to local taxation authority, including requiring a two-thirds vote for all local special taxes, restricting charter city real estate transfer taxes, and potentially invalidating certain existing voterapproved taxes through retroactive provisions.
Following months of negotiations, Initiative 1983 was withdrawn after the Legislature approved ACA 22 (Proposition 43) and simultaneously removed ACA 13 from the ballot through ACA 21.
Unlike the original initiative, Proposition 43 is limited to requiring a two-thirds vote for all local special taxes, including citizen-sponsored initiatives, and does not include the proposed restrictions on charter city transfer taxes or retroactive provisions affecting existing local taxes.
For local governments, the agreement significantly reduced the immediate fiscal risk posed by the original initiative while preserving one of its central policy objectives. If approved, Proposition 43 would make future local and regional special tax measures more difficult to pass by requiring two-thirds voter approval regardless of how they qualify for the ballot.
Healthcare and Rideshare Settlements
Two additional negotiated settlements removed four qualified initiatives from the ballot.
Healthcare stakeholders and the California Labor Federation agreed to withdraw competing initiatives involving healthcare executive compensation and healthcare union political spending.
Similarly, Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California reached a settlement that resulted in the withdrawal of competing initiatives concerning automobile liability, attorney fees, and rideshare passenger safety.
While these measures had limited direct implications for local agencies, their withdrawal eliminated several costly statewide campaigns and narrowed the policy issues voters will consider in November.
LOOKING AHEAD
Although the statewide ballot is now finalized, implementation questions remain for many of the measures should they be approved by voters.
Several propositions would require additional legislation, administrative rulemaking, or regulatory guidance before they could be fully implemented. Others, particularly those involving constitutional changes, taxation, and election administration, could generate litigation addressing statutory interpretation and implementation.
Between now and the November election, campaign spending, endorsements, and public polling will continue to shape the political environment surrounding these measures. Proposition 43 is expected to generate substantial interest from local governments, taxpayer organizations, labor groups, business organizations, and regional coalitions because of its implications for future local
revenue measures. Likewise, housing, CEQA reform, voter identification requirements, and statewide taxation are expected to remain prominent topics throughout the campaign.
Townsend Public Affairs will continue monitoring campaign developments, legislative implementation discussions, fiscal analyses, and administrative guidance as the election approaches. We will provide clients with updates regarding significant campaign developments, implementation considerations, and the practical implications of each measure.