Voters Decide Prop. 45 CEQA Limits, Prop. 44, and Wealth Tax

WALNUT CREEK & SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Campaign spending across California’s 14 statewide ballot propositions has reached nearly $1 billion—the highest total in state history—as voters cast ballots on Tuesday, November 3, on measures that would cap environmental review timelines under Proposition 45, impose a 90% patient-care spending floor on community clinics under Proposition 44, and decide the fate of Proposition 40’s one-time 5% billionaire wealth tax.

Proposition 45: A $71 Million Battle Over CEQA Deadlines for Housing, Water, and Transit

As reported by The Almanac and Mountain View Voice, Proposition 45 (Building an Affordable California Act), sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, would amend the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by limiting environmental reviews for projects deemed "essential"—including housing, water, broadband, and transit developments—to 365 business days and requiring courts to resolve related lawsuits within 270 calendar days.

Supporters have spent $41 million campaigning for Proposition 45 (part of a $71 million combined contest), led by $10 million from the Building a Better California political action committee (funded in part by Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt) and $4.4 million combined from Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison. Backers—including the California Building Industry Association, the California Council for Affordable Housing, co-author Jennifer Hernandez, Oakland Democratic Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and the California Republican Party—cite a Blue Sky Consulting Group analysis estimating $1.5 billion in public agency savings and revenues over 10 years, arguing that 2025 urban housing laws signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom did not go far enough.

Opponents—who have spent $30 million, led by $10 million from philanthropist Wendy Schmidt and $7 million from Clean and Healthy California Sponsored by Environmental Organizations—include the California Democratic Party, the California Municipal Utilities Association, East Bay for Everyone, the Greenbelt Alliance, and Stanford law professor Deborah Sivas, while California YIMBY (Max Dubler), YIMBY Action, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties remained neutral.

Proposition 44: SEIU-UHW and Community Clinics Clash Over 90% Spending Rule

According to The Almanac, Proposition 44—placed on the ballot by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW, led by president Dave Regan and spokesperson Renée Saldaña)—would require community health clinics, which serve an estimated 7 million low-income Californians and currently spend an average of 80% of their revenue on services according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on patient care or pay fines to the state.

Opponents led by the California Primary Care Association (which represents about 2,000 community clinics and filed 2 lawsuits against the union, including a pending September lawsuit) and Dr. Jerry Abraham of Kedren Health have raised $39 million to defeat Proposition 44—more than double the $17 million reported by supporters—citing an analysis that estimates clinics could face $1.7 billion in noncompliance penalties in the 1st (first) year depending on how the state attorney general defines qualifying healthcare spending.

Proposition 40 vs. Propositions 41 and 42 Anchor Nearly $1 Billion in Statewide Initiative Spending

As detailed by NBC Bay Area, Mountain View Voice, and The Almanac, Proposition 40 would impose a one-time 5% wealth tax on Californians whose net worth exceeds $1 billion to help backfill an estimated $100 billion in federal healthcare funding cuts over 5 years.

Backed by SEIU-UHW, the California Federation of Labor Unions (President Lorena Gonzalez), the California Democratic Party, and U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Proposition 40 is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom (who supports a national minimum tax above $100 million), Planned Parenthood, and the California Teachers Association. The "no" side has raised roughly 10 times as much as the "yes" side: Building a Better California has raised more than $333 million (about 30% from Sergey Brin, while Mark Zuckerberg said he would stay in California for 8 years) to defeat Proposition 40 and pass competing measures Proposition 41 and Proposition 42. A mid-October Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll showed 52% of likely voters opposing Proposition 40 and 46% supporting it, reversing an early September PPIC poll (52% yes to 46% no), alongside ballot contests on Prop. 1 ($11.25 billion housing bond), Prop. 2 (1970s-era reserve cap reform), Prop. 3 (permanent tax on incomes over $360,000 / $371,000 enacted in 2012), Prop. 4 (public campaign financing), Prop. 5 (2-step recalls), Prop. 37 (homebuyer loans), Prop. 38 ($8.4 billion immunology bond), Prop. 39 (voter ID), and Prop. 43 (two-thirds threshold for local citizen tax initiatives).