California’s 2026 Ballot Measure Landscape Is Starting to Take Shape

Of the 34 ballot measures in the pipeline in California for 2026, here’s the real players.

It’s late November in an off year, and for followers of ballot measure politics in the premier direct democracy state – California – that can mean only one thing. All eyes turn to the Attorney General and Secretary of State ballot measure tracking pages to see how the landscape is shaping up next year’s elections.

The pipeline of measures working through the process reveals some of the traditional faultlines of conflict via the ballot measure process erupting again, along with some new and emerging issues.

Some of the classics include the ongoing war between the leading union of healthcare workers (SEIU-UHW) and the California Hospital Association, and a traditional battle of trial lawyers against the insured community (this year manifested in an Uber-sponsored measure.)

Taxation issues are often part of the mix, and this year could include a wealth tax and resetting the voter threshold for local tax measures.

Housing and development issues, always a big concern in California, will likely play a major role in next year’s ballot again in the form of a union-backed measure to force the University of California to provide housing assistance to employees, a Cal-Chamber backed major CEQA Reform effort, and a new first time homebuyers assistance program pushed by former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg.

We could also see a renewed clash over nearly 40-year-old fight over regulation of insurance rates.

Joining the fray are issues such as Voter ID, AI regulation, and a couple efforts to reopen the recently concluded Prop 50 redistricting fight.

As political players navigate this changing playing field and how it may impact their policy goals, here’s a primer on how to keep track of it all.

The AG website tracks the status of measures receiving their Title & Summary, which is a short title and synopsis of the proposal which goes on the ballot, and more immediately, the petitions that must be circulated to qualify a measure for the ballot. Submitting a proposed measure to the Attorney General is the first official step on the path to qualifying for the ballot.

The SOS website, meanwhile, tracks measures all the way through the process, from submission to the AG, to those receiving their Title & Summary and being cleared for circulation, to public notice of collecting 25% of the required signatures, and on through submission, verification, and qualification for the ballot.

The Secretary of State also publishes a recommended calendar for qualifying a measure for the November 2026 election. This calendar is extremely conservative, allowing for every single step to take the maximum number of days allowed by law, but even against that knowledge, it’s easy to see that we’re well into the window for the winnowing of measures that were filed for public relations or other purposes but are not serious efforts to qualify.

Bottom line, if you’re not already well into the pipeline either by already collecting signatures, or at least on getting your title & summary with a clear plan to qualify in less than the maximum allowed 180 days, the window has effectively already closed for the 2026 cycle. Could an extremely well-funded – and willing to pay for it in price per signature – start today? Yes. But the cost to qualify would be top shelf.

So with the window for new measures into the pipeline for the 2026 California ballot measure cycle closing, we can start to take stock of what the playing field may look like. And it includes a mix of some perennial fights and emerging issues.

First, let’s look at measures that have already qualified for the November 2026 ballot.

1. ACA 13 – placed on the ballot as a constitutional amendment by the Legislature, this is the so-called “Anti-Jarvis/Anti-California Business Roundtable” measure – would require any measure that seeks to increase the vote threshold for future approvals must itself be passed by that same higher threshold. It is widely seen as a measure to counter the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) measure to re-institute the two-thirds majority vote for local special taxes (see below).

2. SCA 1 – Also placed on the ballot as a legislative constitutional amendment, this proposal would change the rules for recall of state officials. It eliminates the simultaneous replacement election during recalls and instead just has a successful recall vacate the office, to be filled by the normal means. It also states that if the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor becomes the Governor.

3. SB 42 – Placed on the ballot by the Legislature, this measure would repeal the ban on public financing of state and local elections in California, set up criteria by which public financing of state offices could be implemented, and allows local government entities to similarly establish a local system for public financing of campaigns if they so desire. The ban on public financing of elections was established by Prop 73 in 1988. A previous attempt to repeal the ban on public financing of elections was Prop 89 in 2006, which failed. Our firm managed the successful No on Prop 89 campaign.

Of the remaining issues working through the process for qualification, we can group them by likelihood of qualification and also by issue areas. As we have seen in recent election cycles in California, there is a lot of posturing between opposing groups on issue areas, where one side of an issue fight has proposed a ballot measure, and the other side has sponsored a counter measure to muddy the waters or try to get the original party to stand down.

Also of note in reviewing these measures in the pipeline are whether they have paid signature gatherers on the street, whether they have reached and notified the Secretary of State that they have reached the 25% of necessary signatures gathered as required by law, and if they have a well-funded sponsor and/or a ballot measure committee that has been funded.

The following measures currently have paid signature-gathering “on the street” in California, a sure sign of a serious effort to qualify for the ballot:

1. Limits Voter Ability to Raise Local Taxes – This is the HJTA/CBRT-backed measure to override the “Upland” decision and reestablish that local special taxes measures, even if citizen-initiated, require a two-thirds vote to pass. This measure got a late start on getting on the street but has now picked up steam. As a constitutional amendment, it requires a higher signature threshold, it bears watching closely if it will make the ballot. This is the measure targeted by ACA 13 above. Their submission deadline is February 25.

2. Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification – This is the Assemblyman Carl DeMaio-backed constitutional amendment to require Voter ID and Citizenship Verification for voting in California. This also requires a higher threshold, but it has a robust mail signature effort and volunteer effort as well as paid signatures, and DeMaio’s Reform California group is well-established prolific fundraiser. This measure reported on October 21 that it had reached the 25% threshold after just over a month on the street, so it appears on track.

3. Clinic Funding Accountability – This is one of two measures backed by the SEIU-UHW healthcare workers union, and purports to require community health clinics to spend 90% of revenue on program care. UHW and the California Hospital Association have been duking it out in state and local ballot measures for years, and this is just the latest iteration of that. This measure hit the streets on October 7 and reached 25% on November 12, so it also appears on track to qualify.

4. CEO Compensation Cap – The second UHW measure, this one limits pay for executives, managers and administrators at hospitals to $450,000. As with the other UHW measure, it hit the street on October 7 and reached 25% on November 12, and appears on track.Note also, as we’ll discuss below, CHA has countered with measures of their own pushing back on UHW, of the manifestation of the competing ballot measure wars we mentioned.

5. Middle-Class Homeownership Act – This is the Bob Hertzberg-backed measure to authorize $25 billion in bonds to support a homebuying assistance program with lower mortgages and lower down payments. It started circulating on October 21 and reached the 25% threshold on November 18 – less than one month.

6. Prop 55 Extension – This measure addresses the Prop 55 higher state income tax brackets first approved by voters in 2012 and due to expire in 2031. This measure would make those rates permanent and direct the funds to K-12 schools and community colleges. Backed by the powerful and deep-pocketed California Teachers Association, they have a paid signature drive going. This one started circulating on November 4 and has not yet reached the 25% signature threshold, but they aren’t yet a month in, and CTA has the money to qualify any measure they want. It is a constitutional amendment, so it requires the higher signature threshold.

7. UC Staff Down Payment Loans – This measure requires the UC system to provide no-interest 20% down payment loans to non-faculty, non-managerial staff, along the lines of current programs for faculty and managers. This is backed by the union for UC workers – AFSCME Local 3299 – and has a paid signature drive. Circulation just started last week but having a paid signature drive from the start is the best way to qualify for the ballot.

A number of other measures cleared for circulation that don’t have paid signature drives as far as we can see seem likely to not qualify, including a few that grabbed headlines earlier this year like the measure to limit health insurance companies’ ability to restrict medical care.

There are several other measures in the pipeline, either out for signatures now, or pending at the Attorney General’s office for Title & Summary, that may become big issues fights:

The Property Insurance Wars

Ever since California became a heavily-regulated insurance state (with an elected Insurance Commissioner) after the passage of Prop 103 back in 1988, insurers have complained that the Department of Insurance is slow to grant rate increases consistent with the underlying actuarial costs of the underwriting. Now, an insurance agent from Placer County filed a measure to largely gut Prop 103. This measure has been on the street since mid-October with no reported support from insurance companies yet to fund a paid signature drive.

Just in case, however, the self-styled consumer advocates who back the Prop 103 system filed a counter-measure for this fight that they call the "Insurance Policyholder Bill of Rights". This should get its Title & Summary early next week – possibly today.

We shall soon know if “Insurance Wars” will be reignited or fade away for 2026.

Uber versus Trial Lawyers

A measure widely reported to be backed by Uber will also soon get its Title & Summary and enter into circulation. It limits contingency fees for lawyers in auto accidents to 25%, governs how medical expenses in auto accident lawsuits are calculated, and limits referrals between attorneys and medical providers. Uber has backed similar measures in Nevada. You can expect a full effort by them to qualify this. They should have their title and summary in early December

In response to this measure, the Consumer Attorneys of California have filed 3 counter measures, including ones that:

1. Creates a constitutional right to hire the lawyer you want on the terms you want, aimed at blocking future laws that cap or restructure contingency fees in ways the plaintiff bar doesn’t like.

2. Treats Uber/Lyft-style companies as common carriers with a heightened duty of care and full vicarious liability for harms caused by their drivers, regardless of independent-contractor status.

3. A sexual-assault-focused rideshare safety + liability package: tighter background checks, mandatory reporting and investigations, automatic company liability for sexual assaults, and disclosure of internal risk ratings to riders.

Will the Uber vs. CAOC clash of the titans fully engage? We should know right after Thanksgiving.

UHW vs. CHA

As mentioned above, the on-again, off-again, on-again fight at the ballot box across California between the California Hospital Association and the union representing healthcare workers may be heating up again. Two UHW measures are well along the path to qualification.

In response, CHA filed the “Health Care Union Transparency, Accountability & Union Member Right to Vote Act” – which forces big health-care unions to tell members exactly how much of their dues are going into ballot fights and to get a majority vote of the membership before they can drop serious money on any one initiative.

If UHW proceeds with their measures – expect CHA to move with theirs. The CHA measure is expected to be cleared for circulation any day now – possibly next week but definitely right after Thanksgiving.

Prop 50 Redux

Two measures filed are GOP-backed efforts to fight back against the Democrats’ victory in Prop 50.

One would restrict state legislators who voted to put Prop 50 on the ballot from running in these new districts. This measure has been in circulation some time with no signs of an effort to get signatures.

The other, recently filed by GOP activist/lawyer Jim Lacy, would undo Prop 50 and revert to the non-partisan districts for 2028 and 2030 before the next census. Lacy is a serious operative and is seeking funds to qualify his measure.

CEQA Reform

The California Chamber of Commerce has submitted a major CEQA reform measure for title & summary and has a top team in place to qualify and advocate for the proposal. They should get Title & Summary in late December, but all signs point to this being a real effort.

The Other Contenders

Three other measures currently pending at the AG’s office have the potential to become serious efforts:

1. “2026 Billionaire Tax Act” – A one-time, 5% wealth tax on any Californian with a net worth of over $1 billion to fund Medi-Cal services that may see funding cuts from federal action. This measure could have major healthcare worker union backing, but is constitutionally questionable and UHW has a lot on their plate. Title & summary expected right around Christmas.

2. “The California Kids AI Safety Act” – would enact a host of regulations on the interactions between children under 18 and AI chatbots. This measure has all the hallmarks of a serious effort. They have a professional website. They have formed a campaign committee. They haven’t yet reported major dollars, but the public backers have the money if they want to. We think this one looks likely to proceed. Title & summary expected by Christmas.

3. “California Immunology and Immunotherapy Collaborative Medical Research Initiative to End Disease in Our Lifetime”- a measure to authorize $8.4 billion statewide bond to fund immunology research, similar to the previous Prop 71 stem cell bonds – but focused on immunology and immunotherapy. Backed by billionaire Gary K. Michelson, who certainly has the funds to fully back an initiative, but as of this writing does not have the professional infrastructure we see for the Kids AI Safety Act. Dr. Michelson gets his Title & Summary right after New Year’s Day, so he will need to pay top dollar to qualify in about half the allowed time for circulation. We’ll see soon if he puts up the money and assembles the team

So there you have it; a comprehensive rundown of how California’s ballot measure bonanza is likely to shape up. These measures have the chance to shape not only the political/ballot dialog, but the legislative session in January and through the year as proponents and opponents of these measure also potentially seek legislative compromises that allow the ballot fights to stand down.

We’ll keep an eye on it!