Election results in Berkeley and Alameda County

Prop 1: Borrow $11.25 billion for housing

Prop. 1 would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund various affordable housing programs. Of that total amount, $1.25 billion would go toward veteran housing, while the rest would fund rental homes, homeownership programs, farmworker housing, affordable student housing, tribal housing and more. The bond is expected to help fund up to 40,000 multifamily rental units, while also helping another 40,000 households buy a home. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 2: Raise limit on rainy day fund deposits

This constitutional amendment would allow the state to deposit up to 20% of its general fund tax revenue in the state’s reserves, up from the current ceiling of 10%. The deposits would not count toward the voter-approved Gann Limit, which caps the amount state lawmakers can spend each year and requires excess funds to be returned to the people. It also authorizes spending some tax revenue to pay down California’s $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 3: Make income taxes on higher earners permanent to fund education and healthcare

The tax, first enacted in 2012, is set to expire in 2031. Under the measure, income taxes for top earners range from 10.3% (for individual income over $360,000) to 12.3% (for individual income over $721,000), with graduated rates in between. Eighty-nine percent of the money goes to K-12 public schools and 11% goes to community colleges, with any excess going to public healthcare. The tax typically raises $5 billion to $15 billion a year — about 3% to 10% of overall K-12 spending. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 4: Allow public financing of political campaigns

This would authorize California’s state and local governments to establish public campaign funds for candidates if they choose to. It would reverse a 1988 ban on such systems for the state and most local governments. Currently, only five California cities have public financing for local offices, including Berkeley and San Francisco. The California Legislature put this measure on the ballot. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 5: Delay replacing recalled state officials

Under current law, after choosing whether to recall an elected official, voters are asked who should replace them. This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by state lawmakers, would delay the election of a successor until a separate election. The recalled officer would be allowed to run in that election. If the governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor would take over their duties until a new governor is elected. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 37: Create low-cost mortgages for homebuyers

California’s Housing Finance Agency would be able (but not required) to borrow up to $25 billion to help would-be homebuyers purchase newly constructed houses and condos. These loans could provide up to 17% of a home’s purchase price, leaving buyers with a cash down payment of 3% if paired with a typical mortgage — $24,000 for an $800,000 home. Homebuyers would repay the loan in monthly installments to private lenders. Anyone earning up to twice the area’s median income would be eligible. Private lenders, not taxpayers, would be on the hook if homebuyers default. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 38: Borrow $8.4 billion for immunology research

Proposition 38 would create an $8.4 billion bond largely to fund research into fighting cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s, plus other diseases that can be treated through immunotherapies. Half the money would go to a research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would be distributed to select public universities and nonprofits. Drugs created through this research would have to be discounted at 20% for Californians and 10% of any revenue from the drugs would go back to the state general fund. Philanthropist and medical inventor Gary Michelson put this measure on the ballot. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 39: Require identification for voting

This initiative would require voters to show government-issued identification at the polls and order election officials to verify that all registered voters are U.S. citizens. Voters who cast a mail-in ballot would need to give the last four digits of a government ID, such as a driver’s license number. California currently requires residents to provide an identification card and Social Security number to register to vote, but does not request it at polling places. It was placed on the ballot by conservative groups. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 40: Apply one-time tax to billionaires to fund healthcare and education

Proposition 40 would require the estimated 200 Californians whose net worth exceeded $1 billion at the start of this year to pay a one-time 5% tax. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the group that put the measure on the ballot, projects that it would raise roughly $100 billion over five years. That money would be earmarked primarily for healthcare, with some reserved for food assistance and education. If propositions 41 or 42 earn more votes than Proposition 40, this measure would be nullified. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 41: Require audits of new tax programs

This proposition would make it harder to pass new special taxes by requiring the state auditor to review any special tax proposal before it goes to voters. The auditor would assess whether the program that would receive funding could cut spending by at least 10% annually. Any new special tax approved by voters would count toward California’s spending limit, potentially triggering automatic refunds that reduce funding for other state programs. If this proposition receives more votes than Proposition 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires), Proposition 40 is nullified, even if Proposition 40 also passes. It was placed on the ballot by opponents of the proposed billionaire tax. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 42: Ban new taxes on personal property

Proposition 42 would make it much harder to create a wealth tax in California by prohibiting new taxes on the mere ownership of assets such as investment accounts, business interests and personal property — assets that are typically only taxed when they are sold or generate income. Like Proposition 41, which also attempts to block Proposition 40 (a wealth tax on billionaires), Proposition 42 would nullify Proposition 40 if it receives more votes, even if the billionaire tax also passes. It was placed on the ballot by opponents of the proposed billionaire tax. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 43: Raise vote threshold for special tax measures

This would make it harder to impose or increase local taxes by raising the threshold for local citizen-driven special tax ballot initiatives to pass from a simple majority to two-thirds. The two-thirds threshold already applies to taxes proposed by local governments but not by individuals. The measure reflects a deal between state lawmakers and the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to keep a more restrictive tax proposal off the ballot. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 44: Require more clinic spending on patient care

Proposition 44 would require community clinics that serve low-income patients to spend 90% of their annual revenue on patient care. The measure directs the attorney general to publish guidance on what spending qualifies and allows the state to fine clinics that don’t spend the full 90%. The labor union Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West put it on the ballot after pushing a similar bill last year that failed. Clinics failed to keep the measure off the ballot with a lawsuit earlier this year. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)

Prop 45: Speed up environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure

Proposition 45 would limit reviews under the state’s landmark environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act. Placed on the ballot by the California Chamber of Commerce, the measure aims to help developers advance projects they designate as “essential” more quickly and easily. It would impose a 365-day limit on environmental reviews for those projects, including infrastructure like roads and bridges, housing, schools, broadband and wildfire mitigation. It would also require courts to rule within 270 days on lawsuits related to the environmental review law. (Read more in CalMatters’ voting guide.)