By Los Angeles County Politics (LACP)
While the fight over voter identification (Prop. 39) and a proposed tax on billionaires (Prop. 40) has generated the most media coverage of the 14 statewide propositions voters will decide on Nov. 3, two other propositions will more directly affect Los Angeles County.
Voters are also being asked to weigh in on Proposition 1, an $11.25 billion housing bond, and Proposition 45, which would overhaul how quickly the state reviews certain projects for environmental impact.
Prop. 1 would authorize $10 billion in general obligation bonds for state housing programs, plus a separate $1.25 billion bond for veterans’ home loans. The bulk of that money — an estimated $5.1 billion — would go toward the state’s Multifamily Housing Program, which funds the construction, rehabilitation and preservation of affordable rental housing, with the state projecting it could subsidize up to 40,000 rental units statewide.
Worth noting is that Prop. 1 includes $200 million for the Local Housing Trust Fund Matching Grant Program, which matches dollar-for-dollar money that local jurisdictions put toward their own affordable housing funds. This aligns with the Board of Supervisors’ recent approval to issue up to $100 million in tax-exempt bonds through the LA Affordable Housing Solutions Consortium to finance multifamily rental housing projects countywide, exactly the kind of local funding pool Prop. 1’s matching program is designed to supplement.
Prop. 45 would set a 365-day cap on environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a 270-day cap on court rulings in lawsuits challenging project approvals for a defined list of “essential” projects—including housing, water infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and wildfire prevention and resilience projects.
That last category is directly relevant to LA County’s fire recovery. Since the January 2025 wildfires, Gov. Gavin Newsom has relied on a series of executive orders to temporarily suspend CEQA and Coastal Act review for rebuilding in the Eaton and Palisades burn areas, allowing faster permitting for property owners trying to rebuild.
Prop. 45 would write a permanent, statutory version of that same fast-track process into state law — meaning future rebuilding efforts, in Altadena or elsewhere, wouldn’t have to rely on a governor’s emergency order that could lapse or face legal challenge, but would instead have a standing 365-day review clock built into the law itself.
Still, Props. 39 and 40 are getting the lion’s share of attention for a reason: both are drawing real money and real political infighting within the parties that would normally back them.
Prop. 39 is a constitutional amendment that would require voters to show government-issued identification to vote in person, and to provide the last four digits of a government ID number, or a PIN, when voting by mail.
The state would be required to issue free voter ID cards to anyone who doesn’t already have qualifying identification, and election officials would be directed to maintain accurate voter rolls and verify citizenship. California is currently one of only 14 states with no ID requirement at the polls. If voters approve the measure, it would become the 37th state to adopt one, according to Ballotpedia.
The measure is backed by Republicans and emerged amid President Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of widespread voter fraud. It has also become tangled in a fight over how it’s described to voters: Attorney General Rob Bonta‘s office wrote the official ballot title as “Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification,” a framing supporters call misleading, since the measure includes a free-ID option and doesn’t bar anyone from voting outright, according to CalMatters.
Supporters argue an ID requirement will strengthen public trust in California’s elections; opponents say it will make voting harder for eligible residents who lack a driver’s license or similar documents.
Prop. 40, a.k.a the “Billionaire Tax Act,” would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California residents worth more than $1 billion, based on residency as of Jan. 1, 2026. Ninety percent of the revenue would go toward state health care programs, including Medi-Cal, with the remainder split between food assistance, public education and administering the tax itself.
The measure was sponsored by the healthcare workers union SEIU-UHW West and drafted by tax law professors from UC Berkeley, the University of Missouri and UC Davis, along with Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, according to Wikipedia. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projects the tax would raise tens of billions of dollars over several years, while backers put the number closer to $100 billion.
Roughly 200 California billionaires would be subject to the tax. At least six, including Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, left the state before the residency cutoff, according to Wikipedia.
Entrepreneur Chamath Palihapitiya has estimated that more than $700 billion in wealth left California as a result of the measure, though that figure comes from someone opposed to the tax and hasn’t been independently verified.
Notably, Newsom opposes the measure, as do some labor unions who say they weren’t consulted in drafting it — yet the California Democratic Party narrowly endorsed it anyway, over Newsom’s objection, according to CalMatters.
A group of billionaires opposed to the tax has separately bankrolled two competing measures, Propositions 41 and 42, both designed to effectively cancel out Proposition 40’s tax even if it passes, provided either countermeasure receives more votes.
Californians will decide the fate of all 14 propositions, along with the rest of the November ballot, on Nov. 3.
