Brigid Parsons Brigid Parsons

2026 Midterms

Elected Officials

Federal

State

School

County of San Diego

  • Judicial: Joshua Groban, Kelli M Evans, Julia C Kelety, Jose S Castillo, Truc T Do, William T Dato, Eran M Bermudez, Lisa Rodriguez, David M Rubin, Corey G Lee, Michael J Raphael, Joanne Motoike, Thomas A Delaney, Nathan R Scott, Deborah C Servino, Martha K Gooding, Juliet O Macaulay

  • Board of Supervisors, District 5: Kyle Krahel or Rebecca Jones‍ ‍

  • Assessor / Recorder / County Clerk: Jordan Z Marks

  • Treasurer - Tax Collector: Larry Cohen or Shirley Nakawatase

City of Oceanside

Propositions

Politichaos
Prop 1
Prop 1
Read more →
Prop 2
Prop 2
Read more →
Prop 3
Prop 3
Read more →
Prop 4
Prop 4
Read more →
Prop 5
Prop 5
Read more →
Prop 37
Prop 37
Read more →
Prop 38
Prop 38
Read more →
Prop 39
Prop 39
Read more →
Prop 40
Prop 40
Read more →
Prop 41
Prop 41
Read more →
Prop 42
Prop 42
Read more →
Prop 43
Prop 43
Read more →
Prop 44
Prop 44
Read more →
Prop 45
Prop 45
Read more →
Measure A
Measure A
Read more →
Measure B
Measure B
Read more →
Measure R
Measure R
Read more →
Measure S
Measure S
Read more →
Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 1

Bonds for Housing Affordability Programs

legislative statute

Official Summary

Authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for housing affordability programs, including multifamily rental housing, mortgages for veterans, supportive housing, preservation of existing affordable housing, and downpayment assistance.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 25 years to repay the housing bond.

Notes

Previous bonds: $6.38 billion @ 2024 for homeless individuals and veterans, $1 billion @ 2018 for veteran home loans.

Total: $11.25B

  • Affordable multifamily housing loans - $7.2B - 10% for extremely low income

  • Homeownership loans - $1.1B (15% grants)

  • Infrastructure grants - $500M

  • Farmworker housing grants - $450M

  • Higher education student housing grants - $350M

  • Tribal housing grants - $200M

  • Local pilot programs grants - $200M

  • Veterans home loans - $1,250

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 2

Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund

constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Increases California's Rainy Day Fund, approved by voters in 2014, to provide funding for education, health care, public safety, and other essential services during economic downturns.

Fiscal Impact: State budget reserves would be higher.

Notes

  • Currently, the state has about $20 billion in reserves,, 0.75% of General Fund tax revenues are required to be in rainy day fund.

  • During budget emergencies, the state can stop making deposits and/or take money out of the rainy day fund.

  • Once money in the rainy day fund reaches 10% of General Fund taxes, the state is no longer required to make additional deposits.

  • Proposal is to change that number from 10% to 20%

  • Until 2030, the State Constitution requires extra debt payments above those normally made each year in the amount of the amount initially deposited into the rainy day fund each year.

  • Proposal extends this from 2030 to 2040, and expands what debt those funds could be used for.

  • and a bunch of other accounting machinations.

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 3

Provides Permanent Finding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes

initiative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education.

Fiscal Impact: 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.

Notes

  • makes permanent a 2012 tax rate for individuals earning over $371,000 (top 2% earners), instead of expiring in 2031.

  • Income tax rate::

    • $371k to $446k ind, $743k to $892k joint - 10.3% instead of 9.3%

    • $446k to $743k ind, $892k to $1.5 M joint- 11.3% instead of 9.3%

    • Above $743k ind, above $1.5 M joint - 12.3% instead of 9.3%

  • 40% of the revenue would go to local school districts and community colleges

  • if allocations are over Prop 98 levels, up to 50% of the excess (not to exceed $2B) would go to Department of Health Care Services.

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 4

Repeals Prohibition Against Public Funding of Election Campaigns

legislative statute

Official Summary

Repeals prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding of candidate election campaigns. Public funding programs may not use funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.

Fiscal Impact: 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.

Notes

  • Public funds currently cannot be used for local or state candidates, except in a few charter cities.

  • This proposal lifts the 1988 ban on using public funds for political candidates' campaigns, allowing for the creation of public campaign financing in the future but does not create a public campaign finance program.

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 5

Changes Recall Election Process for Statewide Officers

legislative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Under current law, voters elect replacement candidates at the same time as the recall election. This measure instead fills recall vacancies by subsequent special election or appointment.

Fiscal Impact: 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.

Notes

  • Proposal changes the recall process to make it like the existing process for filling vacant state offices, except for the process to recall the Governor

  • If the Governor is recalled, the process for filling the officedepends on when the recall occurs. If the Governor is recalled before the close of the nomination period for the next statewide election during the first two years of the term, the Lieutenant Governor serves as Governor until voters elect a new Governor at a future statewide election. If the Governor is recalled later in the term, the Lieutenant Governor serves as Governor for the rest of the term.

Read More
Proposition, California Brigid Parsons Proposition, California Brigid Parsons

Prop 37

Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes

initiative statute

Official Summary

Authorizes $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of purchase price of a newly constructed home priced below about $1.5 million. Borrowers must be California residents, occupy the home, meet income limits, and pay at least 3% down. Bonds repaid by mortgage payments, not State.

Fiscal Impact: No direct state or local costs.

Notes

  • Specific to new homes

  • Qualifying income level: a household income no more than double the typical income level in their area

  • California resident for 1 year.

  • Buyers’ second-mortgage loans (this program) limited to 17% of a home’s sales price, first mortgage would need to be secured to cover any remaining costs of the qualified home.

  • Developers also could choose to participate in a “qualified builder option”, who would be required to meet higher labor standards but they would be subject to different construction defect rules, which generally aim to provide more flexibility to developers.

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 38

Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research

initiative statute

Official Summary

Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants.

Fiscal Impact: 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.

Notes

  • 2004 and 2020 propositions allowed the state to issue $8.5 billion in bonds for stem cell research.

  • Funding depends on collaboration with UC campuses.

  • 50% of the funds would go to a research institute specializing in immunology and immunotherapy. It seems like they might have one in mind in LA as the following needed to be in place by 1/1/25:

    • The institute must have an affiliation agreement with a UC campus with a graduate training program in immunology and immunotherapy

    • The institute has >$250M in philanthropic donations, has >$50M for a rapid vaccine development program, and >$50M to support a microbiome research program.

    • if proposal passes, the Institute would get a $100M start-up loan

  • 50% would fund competitive research grants focused on immunology and immunotherapy, as decided by a council made up of 7 UC campuses (Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, San Francisco with UCLA rep as first chairperson) and 10 to 15 other universities and nonprofit research institutions in California.

    • Each grant agreement shall require that the grant recipient offer UCLA the opportunity to substantially participate in and collaborate on any clinical trials conducted as part of the funded research.

  • At least $4.2 billion be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease - ½ at the Institute and ½ in grants. No more than 2% may be used for admin costs.

  • Grant recipients must buy at least half of their goods and services from California suppliers when reasonably possible.

  • 10% of any revenue generated by discoveries funded must be given to the state. This funding stream may take decades, if it happens at all.

  • Any treatment developed through funded research and sold in California must generally be offered at a 20 percent discount.

  • Main organizer and ‘Yes” funder is Michelson Center for Public Policy.

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 39

Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-Issued Identification

initiative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Invalidates mail ballots that do not have last four digits of designated government-issued identification number written on envelope. Prohibits in-person voting without presenting government-issued identification.

Fiscal Impact: Costs of between tens of millions of dollars and low hundreds of millions of dollars each year to implement new voting requirements.

Notes

  • In the November 2024 Presidential Election, about 16 million people voted in California. About 13 million voted using a mail ballot, and about 3 million voted in person.

  • The unique number the voter has to provide on mail ballots, instead of signatures, to prove they are a citizen seems easy to hack.

  • Creates option of new voter identification card, requires sttus reports by counties of how many non-citizens are on their voter rolls.

  • There is not a current problem with non citizens voting, there are checks in place already.

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 40

Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers

initiative constitutional amendment and statute

Official Summary

Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit.

Fiscal Impact: 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.

Notes

  • California is home to a few hundred people with net worth over $1 billion

  • Medi-Cal is projected to lose up to $19 billion in annual federal funding due to the implementation of the most recent federal budget legislation and administrative action

  • According to economic analysis and including all taxes at all levels of government, billionaires pay 24% of their income in taxes while the average taxpayer pays 30%.

  • Billionaires who were residents of California on January 1, 2026, or trusts, would have to pay a one-time state tax equal to 5 % of their net worth, due in 2027, but could spread the payments over five years subject to a 7.5% fee on the remaining unpaid balance.

  • Only for tax year 2026.

  • Net worth would be computed including: publicly traded securities at their market value on 12/3126; private business interests; assets under a sole proprietorship; grantor trusts; art, collectibles, intellectual property, vehicles, other financial instruments not publicly traded, and debts or liabilities owed to the individual ($5 million exclusion of total combined asset value from net worth); Roth IRA or other Roth-type retirement accounts valued above $10 million; property valued at more than $1 million transferred after October 15, 2025, for less than fair market value; and dependent's assets in excess of $50,000. Net worth would be reduced by: recourse debts for which the individual is personally liable; nonrecourse debts up to the value of the collateral securing them; and debts and other liabilities resulting from a sole proprietorship but not from a partnership, limited liability company, or other business entity. Real estate is not included, and there are lots of specifics for speacial situations in thew statute.

  • 90% of the money would have to be spent on health care services for the public - goal is to address reductions in federal funding or state appropriations.

  • 10% for education-related (restore or address any reductions in federal funding or state appropriations, or to make investments to protect or enhance the kindergarten through grade 14 public education system) and food assistance (CalFresh, CFAP, CalFood, or California’s universal meals programs for school meals) expenditures

  • If Prop 41 or 42 receive more "ves" votes than Prop 40, then Prop 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters. This is because the courts could find that Prop 41 or 42 conflict with Prop 40 (by design)..

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 41

Prohibits New State Taxes That Exclude Revenues From State Spending Limit. Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes

initiative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Nullifies state taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that exempt their revenues from voter-approved state spending limit. Requires pre-election and recurring audits of programs funded by new special taxes.

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

Notes

  • Proposed in reaction to Prop 40.

  • If Prop 41 receives more "yes" votes than Prop 40, then Prop 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters. This is because the courts could find that Prop 41 conflicts with Prop 40.

  • State Auditor would review each program that would receive funds from a new or increased special tax proposed through the voter initiative process when it has 25 % of the signatures needed to qualify on a ballot, and to write a summary of each audit, with ways to reduce costs by 10%. This report would appear in the voter’s guide for any initiative proposition that increases taxes

  • Audits for any initiative taxes since 1/1/26 every 4 years.

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 42

Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes and Certain Retroactive State Taxes

initiative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Prohibits any new state tax (1) imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate), or (2) that applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities. Nullifies taxes enacted after January 1, 2026 that conflict with this measure.

Fiscal Impact: Possibility that tax revenues will not go up as much in the future.

Notes

  • Proposed in reaction to Prop 40.

  • If Prop 42 receives more "yes" votes than Prop 40, then Prop 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters. This is because the courts could find that Prop 42 conflicts with Prop 40.

  • Excepotion in case of Governor-declared emergency

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 43

Limits Voters’ Ability to Raise Revenues for Local Government Services

legislative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by increasing percentage of votes needed to approve such ballot measures from a majority (over 50%) to two-thirds, beginning January 1, 2027.

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

Notes

  • Stated goal to restore Prop 13’s two-thirds vote requirement to pass local special taxes, including sales taxes, real estate taxes and utility taxes.

  • Under current law, local taxes that are used for a specific purpose require a two-thirds vote of the electorate to be approved. These are called special taxes. However, recent court decisions have allowed special taxes that are proposed by voters to be approved with a majority vote. Under Prop 43, beginning on January 1, 2027, any new, increased, or extended local special taxes proposed by voters would require a two-thirds vote.

  • It will generally make it harder for local governments to pass certain taxes..

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 44

Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services

initiative statute

Official Summary

Imposes penalties on nonprofit Federally Qualified Health Centers (community clinics providing primary care to medically underserved areas and populations) that spend less than 90% of revenue on “program services” advancing their charitable purpose, including but not limited to patient services.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs in the low tens of millions of dollars per year, covered by fees.

Notes

  • There are about 2,000 safety net clinics in California. These clinics currently report spending an average of about 80 % of their revenue on providing health care services, though the percent varies across clinics.

  • Prop 44 requires affected clinics to pay a penalt if they fall short of 90%. The penalty would equal the amount of spending needed to reach the 90% minimum. Clinics could get their money back if they comply with the spending requirements within five years. If clinics do not comply within five years, the state would keep the money and spend it on clinic workforce programs.

  • A new registration fee would be charged to clinics to fund the oversight of this statute.

  • Waivers may be provided in certain cases.

  • Any patient may bring an action to enjoin, correct, or otherwise remedy a breach of a charitable trust

Read More
California, Proposition Brigid Parsons California, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Prop 45

Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects

initiative statute

Official Summary

Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals.

Fiscal Impact: 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.

  • Legislative Analyst Office Analysis

  • Show Me The Money

    • support: $40,056,350 - California Children’s Hospital Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing

    • oppose: $18,905,427 - Coalition for Clean Air; CA Environmental Voters; Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA; National Wildlife Federation

  • Ballotpedia Summary

Notes

  • The government agency first determines if CEQA applies to a project, determines if the project could significantly affect the environment and if those impacts could be avoided or reduced with minor changes, possibly requires an environmental impact report, and decides whether to approve the project. At certain times during this process, the government agency must seek and consider comments about the project’s environmental review from the public and other government agencies.

  • “Housing of all types” is included. This is key.

  • “Essential” projects impacted include:

    • Housing.

    • Water system (not including Delta conveyance facilities).

    • Clean energy (not including nuclear power).

    • Health facility, clinic, and medical office building.

    • Fire, police, and sheriff's stations.

    • Wildfire risk reduction.

    • Broadband Internet access.

    • Education facility.

    • Transportation (not including high speed trains)

  • The proposition (1) tightens time limits for CEQA review, permits, and court challenges; (2) changes parts of the CEQA review process; and (3) changes the court’s review process for CEQA lawsuits.

  • Agencies would have 30 days to determine whether an application is complete, else automatically deemed complete.

  • Public comment limited to 45 days, and other time limitations are set.

  • Proposition makes several changes to the CEQA review process and reduces the scope of what the court can consider in CEQA lawsuits.

  • Potential for negative environmental impacts due to accelerated schedule.

  • The initiative would require applicants and lead agencies to consult with native tribes listed as federally recognized, not the state Native American Heritage Commission list.

Read More
San Diego County, Proposition Brigid Parsons San Diego County, Proposition Brigid Parsons

Measure A

A Transparent, Accountable, Modern County Government

Official Summary

Shall the San Diego County Charter be amended to establish an Independent Ethics Commission, Independent Budget Analyst, Independent Program Auditor, confirmation of certain senior County leaders, and optional Board of Supervisors appointment of the Public Defender; increase term limits from two to three terms for the Board of Supervisors members; require public disclosure of spending and performance data; clarify non-interference provisions; and update terminology and structure?

Fiscal Impact: The staff report stated there is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this item intended to be cost-neutral.

Notes

  • Increases term limit from 2 to 3.

  • Process to be able to remove chief administrativce officers by a 4/5 vote.

  • Board may appoint an Independent Budget Analyst and Independent Program Auditor, may change the Public Defender from Chief Administrator Officer appointment to Board appointment.

  • Establish Ethics Commission

  • Require Auditor and Controller to post all COunty spending data on the County website.

  • Updates nepotism guideline

Read More
Proposition, San Diego County Brigid Parsons Proposition, San Diego County Brigid Parsons

Measure B

Measure to Fund San Diego County Health & Safety Services

initiative statute

Official Summary

To clean-up sewage pollution in Tijuana River Valley, improve wildfire prevention, emergency response, access to healthcare, food assistance, childhood development services, and authorized administrative expenses; shall the measure authorizing a half-cent sales tax raising an estimated $400M to $450M annually, requiring citizen oversight, public spending disclosure, and independent annual audits, and lasting until ended by voters, be adopted?

Fiscal Impact: This measure would raise taxes by implementing an additional 0.5% sales tax county-wide in addition to any other taxes required by law. The tax would apply within the County of San Diego, affecting all consumers making retail purchases in the county raising the combined sales-tax rate from 7.75% to 8.25% in cities at the base tax rate, and to 9.25% in the cities currently at 8.75% The tax would create a dedicated revenue stream estimated at $400 to $450 million annually for the Protect San Diego County Health and Safety Fund which would add approximately 4.3% to San Diego County’s existing $9.16 billion dollar budget and will last until ended by another voter initiative..

Notes

  • Establish a Citizen Oversight Committee

  • Funds would be used for:

    • no more than 1.5% on admin

    • up to $300k on the Oversight Committee

    • Stopping sewage pollution in the Tijuana River Valley: 22.5%

      • no less than 20% on infrastructure

    • Public safety services and wildfire prevention: 17.5%

      • no less than 8% on fire preparedness

      • no less than 8% on law enforcement and 911

    • Healthcare, childcare, and nutrition services: 60%

      • 5% for in-home healthcare

      • 7% SNAP and food insecurity

      • 9% for services historically funded by Medicare

      • 17% for County Medical Services

      • 8% for chidcare providers

      • 8% childcare vouchers

      • 6% early childhood health services

  • exemptions consistent with the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law

Read More
Proposition, Oceanside Brigid Parsons Proposition, Oceanside Brigid Parsons

Measure R

Affirm State Law Wage Requirements for Public Contracting and Allow Project Labor Agreements Amendment

Official Summary

To preserve the City’s ability to continue receiving state infrastructure funding for public works projects, shall the Oceanside City Charter be amended to conform to state laws and best practices regarding prevailing wage and fair competition, including the use of project labor agreements for City public works with mandatory provisions for taxpayer protections, transparency, and accountability in the contracting process, by amending Sections 301, 302, and 303 of the Oceanside City Charter?

Notes

  • purpose is to align City Charter with laws governing state funding and financial assistance in support of public works projects

  • affirm prevailing wage requirements and allow for project labor agreements

Read More
Proposition, Oceanside Brigid Parsons Proposition, Oceanside Brigid Parsons

Measure S

Levy Sales Tax to Fund General City Services Measure

Official Summary

To provide locally-controlled funding for Oceanside services and infrastructure, such as keeping streets, sidewalks, parks, and public facilities safe, clean, and well-maintained; fixing potholes; improving traffic; restoring/protecting local beaches; modernizing public safety/emergency facilities to improve 911 emergency response/community safety; and repairing aging infrastructure, shall City of Oceanside’s ordinance establishing a 1/2 cent sales tax be adopted, providing $20,000,000 annually for general government use for 10 years, with independent audits and citizen oversight?

Fiscal effects: The Oceanside City Attorney’s impartial analysis indicates that Measure S will generate approximately $20 million per year.

Notes

  • Oceanside’s current sales tax rate is 8.25%. If this passes, the sates tax rate would increase to 8.75% through 2036. If San Diego County Measure B also passes, the sales tax rate would be 9.25%. That sales tax increase has no expiration.

  • It would commence on or after April 1, 2027 and would remain in place for 10 years (2037). Measure X (added .5%) is in place until 2036.

  • funds can be used for any governmental purpose

  • Citizens’ Oversight Committee would be created

  • exemptions consistent with the Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law

Read More