If links don't open, you may be viewing this file in a preview. Open it in a web browser, or tap a link and use the Copy button that appears at the bottom of the screen.
LA Composite Voter Guide — Nov. 3, 2026
A nonpartisan digest of CalMatters, LAist, the California Budget & Policy Center, and Los Angeles County's official ballot lists, current as of Oct. 14, 2026. It reports what each source says and who lines up where. It makes no recommendations. Your official ballot always takes precedence. To build your own ballot, use the interactive ballot app.
At a glance: the 14 state propositions
| Prop | A YES vote would | Put on ballot by | Notable YES | Notable NO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Borrow $11.25B for affordable housing ($1.25B for veterans) | Legislature | CA Dem Party, Newsom, CA Apartment Assn., AFL-CIO | Some GOP legislators |
| 2 | Raise rainy-day reserve cap from 10% to 20% of general fund revenue | Legislature | CA Dem Party, Newsom | Reform California, legislative GOP |
| 3 | Make the top-earner income tax rates (10.3%–12.3%) permanent | CA Teachers Assn. | CTA, State PTA, CA Medical Assn., CA Dem Party | CalTax, Reform California |
| 4 | Lift 1988 ban so governments may publicly finance campaigns | Legislature | Common Cause, League of Women Voters, CA Dem Party | CalTax, Howard Jarvis, Reform California |
| 5 | Drop the replacement question from recalls; fill vacancy later | Legislature | Common Cause, LWV, CA Dem Party, Sac Bee | CA GOP, Election Integrity Project, Reform California |
| 37 | Let CalHFA borrow up to $25B to lend up to 17% of a new home's price | Realtors + labor coalition | CA Dem Party, Becerra, CA Realtors, SEIU | Reform California, LWV |
| 38 | Borrow $8.4B for immunology research, half to one UC-affiliated nonprofit | Gary Michelson | Immunologists' assn., City of Hope, CA Dem Party | LWV, OC Register, Robert Kaplan |
| 39 | Require government ID to vote in person; last 4 ID digits on mail ballots | Conservative groups | CA GOP, Reform California, Howard Jarvis | ACLU, Common Cause, LWV, CA Dem Party |
| 40 | One-time 5% tax on ~200 Californians worth $1B+, mostly for health care | SEIU-UHW | SEIU-UHW, Sanders, Teamsters, CA Dem Party | CA Medical Assn., CTA, Planned Parenthood, Business Roundtable |
| 41 | Audits for new special taxes; count them under the spending cap; can void 40 | Opponents of Prop 40 | Sergey Brin, Stewart Resnick, CalTax | SEIU-UHW, CA Dem Party |
| 42 | Ban new state taxes on owning personal property and retroactive taxes; can void 40 | Opponents of Prop 40 | Brin, CA Professional Firefighters, Building Trades | SEIU-UHW, CA Dem Party |
| 43 | Require 2/3 vote for citizen-initiated local special taxes (from 2027) | Legislature | Howard Jarvis, CalTax, Reform California | CA Dem Party, Professional Firefighters, SEIU |
| 44 | Require community clinics to spend 90% of revenue on program services | SEIU-UHW | SEIU-UHW only | Primary Care Assn., CMA, Planned Parenthood, CA Dem Party |
| 45 | Cap CEQA reviews of "essential" projects at 365 days; courts rule in 270 | CA Chamber of Commerce | CalChamber, CA GOP, hospital groups, LULAC | CA Labor Fed, CA Dem Party, Sierra Club, LWV |
Endorsements come mainly from CalMatters' proposition pages, supplemented by the official supporter and opponent lists.
Sources and how to weigh them
| Source | What it covers | Stance |
|---|---|---|
| CalMatters voter guide | State props, statewide offices, legislature | Nonprofit, nonpartisan; no endorsements |
| LAist Voter Game Plan | LA County, LA City, local measures, state props | Nonprofit NPR station; does not tell you how to vote |
| CA Budget & Policy Center | Fiscal analysis of Props 2, 3, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 | Calls itself nonpartisan; CalMatters describes it as left-leaning, and its headlines take sides (pro-3, anti-43) |
| LA County Registrar: measures, candidates | Official contest lists and ballot labels | Official |
Endorsement lists lean on the CA Democratic Party on one side and Reform California on the other. Those are party positions, not independent assessments.
Other reliable voter guides
- VOTE411 (League of Women Voters): Nonpartisan. Enter your address for your complete ballot, including local races, with candidates' own answers. Formerly Voter's Edge.
- Official state Voter Information Guide: Official. Legislative Analyst's analysis, arguments and rebuttals, and statewide candidate statements.
- LA County Interactive Sample Ballot: Official. Your exact ballot, with local measure analyses and arguments.
- KQED Voter Guide: Public media. Plain-language guides to state races and props.
- CalMatters Voter Guide: Nonpartisan newsroom. Props, statewide and legislative races.
- LAist Voter Game Plan: Public media. LA County, city and judicial races.
- L.A. Material: Giant Guide to Voter Guides: Independent LA newsroom. A roundup of nonpartisan guides plus endorsements from newspapers and interest groups, with context on who's behind each. Metered paywall.
- League of Women Voters of CA recommendations: Advocacy: takes yes/no positions on the props. Separate from its nonpartisan VOTE411.
Read first: how Props 40, 41 and 42 interact
If Prop 40 and either Prop 41 or 42 both pass, whichever got more YES votes wins, so the billionaire tax can fail even with majority support. Pomona's Sara Sadhwani, on LAist's expert panel, called 41 and 42 poison pills: a YES on either works as a NO on 40.
That shorthand is incomplete. Both measures also have lasting effects beyond blocking 40, as the Budget Center's Kayla Kitson told CalMatters:
- Prop 41 requires audits of future special-tax programs and counts new special taxes toward the Gann spending limit.
- Prop 42 permanently bans new state taxes on owning personal property (anything but real estate) and bans retroactive taxes.
| If you want… | 40 | 41 | 42 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The billionaire tax to take effect | YES | NO | NO |
| No billionaire tax and no new limits | NO | NO | NO |
| No billionaire tax plus permanent limits | NO | YES on 41, 42, or both |
A recent PPIC survey found 52% support for 40, 51% for 41 and 54% for 42 among likely voters, per CalMatters.
Race by race
Each race has up to four parts: Analysis (what it does, cost and polling), Arguments (the official and main arguments on each side, summarized), In their own words (candidates' positions, paraphrased), and Money (who is funding each side). Every part lists its sources.
State propositions
Prop 1 — Housing bond
Analysis
A $11.25 billion general obligation bond. $10 billion goes to state housing programs: $7.2 billion for affordable multifamily rentals (including $150 million for youth housing), $1.1 billion for homeownership help, $500 million for infrastructure, $450 million for farmworker housing, $350 million for UC and CSU student housing, $200 million for tribal housing and $200 million for local pilot programs. The other $1.25 billion funds veterans' home loans, which veterans repay.
Cost: The Legislative Analyst estimates $500–600 million a year from the General Fund for about 25 years, roughly a quarter of 1% of the budget. It could subsidize up to about 40,000 multifamily rental units. Together with Prop 38, new bond payments would total about $1 billion a year.
Polling: PPIC September, 55% yes, 43% no.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For (official argument): Builds affordable homes for veterans, seniors, people with disabilities, working families and essential workers such as teachers and nurses. Expands homeownership, speeds shovel-ready projects, and includes fiscal oversight with no new taxes. Listed supporters: US Vets, CA Federation of Teachers, Self-Help for the Elderly, Habitat for Humanity CA.
Against: No official argument against was submitted. Some Republican legislators (per CalMatters) argue the state shouldn't add debt without addressing why building is so expensive.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: About $7.9 million from top contributors, including $1 million each from Airbnb, two carpenters' councils and Building a Better California, and $500,000 from Anthropic.
No: No opposing committee has raised $1 million.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 2 — Rainy day fund
Analysis
Changes the rainy-day fund rules voters set in 2014. The cap rises from 10% to 20% of General Fund taxes, with larger deposits in years when capital-gains tax revenue is unusually high. Required extra debt payments are extended from 2030 to 2040 and can cover more, including money owed to schools and repayment of federal loans (the state owes about $20 billion in federal unemployment-insurance debt). Deposits would no longer count toward the state spending limit until withdrawn. The state now holds about $20 billion in general-purpose reserves.
Fiscal effect: State reserves would be higher.
Polling: PPIC 60% yes, 39% no.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Saving more in boom years lets the state avoid deep cuts in downturns. Listed supporters: CA Professional Firefighters, LA Area Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Newsom, Xavier Becerra, Asm. Jesse Gabriel.
Against (official argument signed by Asm. David Tangipa, Sen. Steven Choi and Carl DeMaio of Reform California): Parking more money outside the spending limit lets Sacramento avoid returning surplus taxes to taxpayers.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
No committee on either side has raised $1 million.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 3 — High-income tax
Analysis
Makes permanent the high-income tax brackets first passed in 2012 (Prop 30) and extended in 2016 (Prop 55): 10.3% on single-filer income from about $371,000 to $446,000, 11.3% up to $743,000, and 12.3% above that (thresholds double for joint filers). Without Prop 3, rates on that income fall back to 9.3% after 2030. The top 2% of taxpayers pay these rates, and they pay about half of all state income tax.
Fiscal effect: Keeps $5–15 billion a year after 2030. Roughly 40% would go to schools and community colleges; the rest to other programs and reserves.
A correction to earlier summaries: The often-quoted 89%/11% split is how the education share is divided between K–12 and community colleges, not how all the revenue is divided.
Polling: PPIC 58–40; Berkeley IGS 54–34.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Stable funding prevents school and health cuts. Listed supporters: CA Teachers Association, CA School Nurses Organization, CA State PTA, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA.
Against: The tax was sold as temporary, California's top rate is already the nation's highest, and revenue from high earners is volatile and may leave the state. Listed opponents: CA Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of CA, CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $49.3 million from top contributors, including $33.3 million from the CA Teachers Association and $7.5 million from the National Education Association.
No: No opposing committee has raised $1 million.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 4 — Public campaign financing
Analysis
Repeals the state law barring public financing of campaigns. Charter cities such as Los Angeles are already exempt. It does not create a program; it lets the state and local governments create one, within limits: no money earmarked for education, transportation or public safety; no public funds for legal defense, fines or repaying candidates' personal loans; and candidates must show broad support and accept spending limits. It also triples the maximum fine for contributions from foreign entities.
Cost: A few hundred thousand dollars a year for state guidance; any future program could cost more.
Polling: PPIC 42–53; Berkeley IGS 35–35 with 30% undecided.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Reduces the influence of big donors and lets candidates without wealthy backers compete. Listed supporters: League of Women Voters of CA, CA Nurses Association, Consumer Watchdog, Social Security Works.
Against: Taxpayers would fund candidates they oppose, at a time of budget strain. Former FPPC chair Dan Schnur signed the argument against; the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board opposes it. Listed opponents: CA Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association, United Latinos Action.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
No committee on either side has raised $1 million.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 5 — Recall reform
Analysis
Removes the second question ("who should replace them?") from recall elections. If a governor is recalled, the lieutenant governor serves until the next statewide election or, late in a term, for the rest of it. Other vacancies are filled as they are now: special elections for legislators, appointment for other offices. The recalled official could run in the special election. The Legislative Analyst notes it also covers legislative recalls, despite the "statewide officers" title.
History: 11 state recalls have qualified since 1913 and six succeeded; 2003 drew 135 replacement candidates and 2021 drew 46.
Fiscal effect: Unknown; savings or costs of millions per recall.
Polling: PPIC 35% yes, 59% no.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For (argument by League of Women Voters, CA Common Cause, Dan Schnur): A recall should be a verdict on the incumbent; the current system can install a replacement with a small plurality.
Against (argument by Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones and Asm. Joe Patterson): It takes the choice of a replacement away from voters and can hand the office to the recalled governor's own ally.
The official guide lists no supporters or opponents on its summary page, but these arguments are printed.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
No committee on either side has raised $1 million.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 37 — Homebuyer loans
Analysis
Lets the state housing finance agency sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to make second loans of up to 17% of a home's price; the buyer puts down at least 3%. Borrowers must have lived in California a year, live in the home and earn no more than twice the area median income. Homes must be newly built (or the first sale of a converted nonresidential building) and priced under roughly $1–1.5 million depending on county. Builders can opt into a track that trades higher labor standards for more flexible construction-defect rules.
Cost: No direct state or local cost, since borrowers repay the bonds. Whether investors will buy the bonds and whether it increases construction are uncertain.
Polling: PPIC 61–35, the strongest on the ballot.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Puts ownership within reach of middle-income families and spurs new construction without taxpayer cost. Proponent: former Senate leader Robert Hertzberg. Listed supporters: United Nurses Associations of CA, CA Conference of Carpenters, Treasurer Fiona Ma.
Against: No official argument against was submitted. Critics including the League of Women Voters and Reform California (per CalMatters) say it adds buyer debt without lowering housing costs.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $29.55 million, led by the CA Association of Realtors (about $21.85 million combined) and Building a Better California ($6 million).
No: No opposing committee has raised $1 million.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 38 — Immunology research bond
Analysis
$8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, at least $4.2 billion of it on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. Half goes to one research institute affiliated with a UC campus and chosen by the Department of Public Health; half goes to competitive grants. Treatments developed with the money must be sold in California at a 20% discount, and 10% of resulting revenue goes to the state until the bond is repaid.
Cost: $500–600 million a year for about 20 years, possibly recovered later if research produces revenue.
Polling: PPIC 55–42.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Could speed cures as federal research funding is cut. Listed supporters: Michael J. Fox Foundation, Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Kidney Cancer Association, American Nurses Association CA.
Against: Concentrates billions in a single institute, adds long-term debt, and payoffs are uncertain. Signed by Stanford's Robert Kaplan, the only listed opponent; the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board also opposes it.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $48.2 million, of which $31.2 million comes from entities of proponent Gary Michelson.
No: No opposing committee has raised $1 million.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 39 — Voter ID
Analysis
A constitutional amendment. Voters would need government ID to vote in person, would have to list a government ID number when registering in order to vote by mail, and would write its last four digits on the mail-ballot envelope; a mismatch invalidates the ballot. Officials must make "best efforts" to verify registrants' citizenship using government data and report county results annually. The state would offer a free voter ID card, and the State Auditor would review compliance every other year. The Legislature must pass follow-up laws, including which IDs count. About 13 million of 16 million Californians voted by mail in 2024.
Cost: Tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars a year.
Polling: PPIC 43–55; IGS 39–52; an NBC-reported poll 49–42; an advocacy-sponsored poll 43–40.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Builds confidence in elections; most states require some ID. Proponents: Carl DeMaio, Tony Strickland. Listed supporters: Transparency Foundation, Latino American Political Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Steve Hilton supports it.
Against: Adds barriers for eligible voters, exposes ID numbers to theft, and California already verifies voters. Listed opponents: ACLU CA Action, Common Cause, League of Women Voters of CA; Sen. Alex Padilla signed a rebuttal. Xavier Becerra says it would make voting harder.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $22 million, $17 million of it from Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein.
No: $21.0 million across three committees, led by the CA Democratic Party ($5.45 million), the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria ($2 million) and Reed Hastings ($1 million).
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 40 — Billionaire tax
Analysis
A one-time 5% tax on the net worth of people who were California residents on Jan. 1, 2026 and are worth $1 billion or more, measured Dec. 31, 2026. Payable with 2026 taxes or over five years with a 7.5% deferral charge. Real estate and most retirement accounts are excluded; businesses, securities, art and intellectual property worldwide count. 90% goes to health care, 10% to education and food aid. The revenue is exempt from the school-funding guarantee, reserve rules and the spending limit.
Fiscal effect: Tens of billions of dollars over several years, plus a possible ongoing loss of under $1 billion a year in income tax if billionaires leave.
Interaction: If Prop 41 or 42 gets more yes votes than Prop 40, Prop 40 could be blocked even with majority support.
Polling: PPIC 52–46; IGS 45–42; NBC-reported 48–38.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For (official argument): Federal cuts reduced health coverage to fund tax breaks for billionaires; a one-time tax on the wealthiest would fund care. Listed supporters: Sen. Bernie Sanders, SEIU-UHW.
Against (official argument): A flawed one-time tax that would hurt the economy and budget, contains a loophole risk for other taxpayers, and doesn't lower health costs. Opponents named in the argument include the CA Teachers Association, CA Medical Association, children's hospitals, firefighters and building trades. Gov. Newsom and both candidates for governor oppose it.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $32.3 million, $31.8 million of it from SEIU-UHW.
No: The main committee reports $88.7 million, $88.5 million from Building a Better California (whose top donors the FPPC lists as Sergey Brin and John Doerr). A second committee reports $10.45 million from Ripple Labs and Chris Larsen.
Across Props 40, 41 and 42, Building a Better California has put about $244.65 million into defeating the billionaire tax.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 41 — Tax audits
Analysis
Two parts. First, the State Auditor would review programs that a proposed citizen special tax would fund, before it reaches the ballot, and audit them every four years after. Second, no state tax enacted or taking effect on or after Jan. 1, 2026 could be exempt from the state spending limit. Prop 40 claims that exemption, which is the conflict.
Cost: Unknown; audits in the low millions a year.
Polling: PPIC 51–44; IGS 37–33 with 30% undecided.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Voters deserve independent audits before approving new taxes. Listed supporters: CA Society of CPAs, CalAsian Chamber, CA Taxpayers Association.
Against: Written to cancel Prop 40. Listed opponent: SEIU-UHW.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $58.4 million, $58.35 million from Building a Better California.
No: Only the Yes on 40 committee opposes it.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 42 — Ban on new personal-property taxes
Analysis
A constitutional ban on new state taxes on owning or controlling personal assets (financial accounts, investments, business interests, digital assets, intellectual property), and on retroactive taxes, including taxes based on where someone lived before the tax took effect. Applies to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after Jan. 1, 2026, including those on the same ballot. California has no such tax today. It does not affect property tax on homes or land.
Fiscal effect: Future revenue may be lower.
Polling: PPIC 54–43; IGS 43–34. On PPIC's numbers it outpolls Prop 40, the scenario in which courts decide whether Prop 40 takes effect.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Protects savings and retirement holdings from new wealth taxes. Listed supporters: CA Professional Firefighters, State Building and Construction Trades Council, AMVETS.
Against: Exists to shield billionaires from Prop 40. Listed opponent: SEIU-UHW.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $97.8 million, all but about $22,500 from Building a Better California; the largest single-committee total on the ballot.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 43 — Local tax threshold
Analysis
From Jan. 1, 2027, local special taxes placed on the ballot by citizen petition would need two-thirds approval, as taxes placed by local governments already do. Courts had allowed citizen-initiated special taxes to pass by simple majority. The Legislature passed it 35–1 and 68–2 as a compromise that kept a broader Howard Jarvis measure off the ballot.
Fiscal effect: Local revenues may not rise as much.
Polling: PPIC 43–51; IGS 31–40 with 29% undecided.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: One consistent threshold for special taxes and protection against bare-majority taxes in low-turnout elections. Listed supporters: CA Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association, CA Hispanic Chambers; Howard Jarvis is the campaign contact.
Against: Gives a one-third minority a veto over local services voters want. Listed opponents: CA Professional Firefighters, CA Federation of Teachers, SEIU Nurse Alliance.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $14 million, $9.85 million from the CA Business Roundtable Issues PAC (top donors Peter Thiel and Kim DeGeorge).
No: $5.4 million, led by SEIU.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 44 — Clinic spending
Analysis
Requires private nonprofit community health centers (Federally Qualified Health Centers) to spend at least 90% of revenue on "program services," as defined by the Attorney General. Clinics that fall short pay the gap as a penalty, refundable if they comply within five years. California has about 2,000 safety-net clinics, which report spending about 80% on health services on average.
Cost: Low tens of millions a year, charged to clinics as fees. The Legislative Analyst says some clinics might close rather than comply.
Polling: PPIC 34–61.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Directs more money to patients and less to overhead and executive pay. Sponsor: SEIU-UHW; no organizational supporters are listed.
Against: Clinics serving low-income patients would cut services or close. Listed opponents: American Academy of Pediatrics CA, CA School Nurses Organization, CA Academy of Family Physicians, CA Medical Association.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $16.9 million, all from an SEIU-UHW committee.
No: $16.8 million from the clinics' committee, led by AltaMed ($5.5 million).
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Prop 45 — Faster environmental review
Analysis
Creates an optional faster track under the California Environmental Quality Act for "essential" projects in nine categories: housing, water (excluding Delta conveyance), clean energy (excluding nuclear), health facilities, fire and police stations, wildfire risk reduction, broadband, schools, and transportation (excluding high-speed rail). It sets a 365-business-day limit to finish an environmental impact report, lets the applicant propose a single alternative, freezes standards at the application date, limits tribal consultation to federally recognized tribes, caps comment periods, and lets courts halt only the deficient part of a project.
Cost: High tens of millions a year at first, possibly over $100 million, partly offset by fees; long-term effects uncertain in either direction.
Polling: PPIC 49–46, the closest on the ballot.
Sources: Official analysis (Legislative Analyst) · California Today proposition guide (secondary) · PPIC September survey
Arguments
For: Gets hospitals, housing and water projects built faster and curbs lawsuit abuse. Listed supporters: CA Children's Hospital Association, CA Water Association, CA Council for Affordable Housing.
Against: Weakens environmental review and tribal consultation and limits courts' ability to stop harmful projects. Listed opponents: Coalition for Clean Air, CA Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, National Wildlife Federation.
Sources: Official arguments and rebuttals · CalMatters
Money
Yes: $30.4 million, led by Building a Better California ($10 million), the CA Building Industry Association (about $7.9 million; top donors KB Home and Lennar), CalChamber and Edison International ($2 million each).
No: $22.2 million, led by Clean and Healthy California ($7.1 million), Wendy Schmidt ($5 million) and building trades and laborers' unions.
Contributions are from the Fair Political Practices Commission's top-contributor list as of Oct. 5, 2026, as tallied by California Today. Totals change weekly; check the FPPC link for current figures.
Sources: FPPC top contributors (official) · State top contributors (official) · California Today proposition guide (secondary)
Statewide offices
Governor
Analysis
The governor runs most state agencies, proposes the budget, signs or vetoes bills, appoints judges and directs emergency response. Gov. Newsom is termed out.
Sources: Official office description
In their own words
Neither candidate submitted an official candidate statement. These positions are paraphrased from news coverage.
Xavier Becerra (D): Would declare a state of emergency over the housing shortage, cut red tape for housing that meets affordability and environmental standards, and create a $150 million-a-year fund to prevent homelessness. Supports "housing first" and says sleeping outside shouldn't be treated as a crime, while also pledging to clear encampments. Supports higher taxes on the very wealthy; opposes Props 39 and 40; has said he would support Prop 3. Makes standing up to the Trump administration a top priority.
Steve Hilton (R): Would cut taxes, including eliminating state income tax on the first $150,000 of earnings, and pledges $3-a-gallon gas and halved utility bills. Favors enforcing anti-camping laws and building low-cost group shelters instead of permanent housing. Supports Prop 39; opposes Prop 40.
Sources: AP: the debate · KQED governor guide · CalMatters: candidates on homelessness
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Lieutenant Governor
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Secretary of State
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Attorney General
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Controller
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Treasurer
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Insurance Commissioner
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Superintendent of Public Instruction
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
Board of Equalization, District 3
In their own words
Read each candidate's official statement, in their own words, in the state Voter Information Guide. Candidates choose whether to submit one.
Sources: Official candidate statements
Money
Campaign finance for statewide candidates is reported to the Secretary of State.
Sources: State top contributors (official)
LA County
LA County Sheriff
Analysis
A rematch of 2022. Incumbent Robert Luna, who defeated Alex Villanueva in 2022 with 61% of the vote, led the June primary with about 44%; Villanueva, the former sheriff, placed second with about 22%. Luna is seeking to become the first LA County sheriff re-elected since Lee Baca in 2010.
Sources: LAist: Sheriff · Wikipedia: 2026 LA County elections
In their own words
For each candidate's own case, see LAist's sheriff guide and the County's candidate statements (choose the Sheriff contest).
Sources: LAist: Sheriff · County candidate statements
County Measure A — Public safety labor disputes
Analysis
A County Charter amendment. It bars strikes by district attorney investigators, medical examiners, lifeguards, their supervisors, and non-administrative civilian employees in the Fire, Sheriff's and Medical Examiner departments. It restates the county's duty to negotiate in good faith and creates impartial binding arbitration to resolve labor disputes with certified public-safety unions.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 4 · LAist: Measure A
Arguments
For: LA County Firefighters Local 1014, Association of LA Deputy Sheriffs, LA/OC Building Trades Council.
Against: No argument against was submitted.
Sources: LAist: Measure A
County Measure E — Ethics Commission
Analysis
A County Charter amendment that writes the Ethics Commission, Office of Ethics Compliance and Ethics Compliance Officer into the charter, setting appointment processes, qualifications, terms and duties, so they are more independent. It also continues the county's commitment to community investment and alternatives to incarceration. Background (LAist): Measure G in 2024 created an independent ethics commission by 2026; a reform task force recommended protecting its independence in the charter.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 4 · LAist: Measure E
Arguments
For: League of Women Voters of LA County, CA Clean Money, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, CA Common Cause, AAPI Equity Alliance.
Against: None submitted.
Sources: LAist: Measure E
City of Los Angeles
Mayor of Los Angeles
Analysis
LA's mayor proposes a $14 billion budget, can veto council ordinances (the council can override with two-thirds), hires department heads including the police and fire chiefs, and appoints commissions and four Metro board members. LA has a weak-mayor system: the council controls much of land use and budgeting, and the mayor has no say over LAUSD.
What's at stake (LAist): Palisades Fire recovery; more than 45,000 unhoused residents despite over $1 billion a year in spending; whether to allow affordable housing in single-family zones and how to implement SB 79's taller apartments near transit; an LAPD that has shrunk below 8,700 officers; and protecting the city from 2028 Olympics cost overruns.
Also worth knowing: L.A. Material examines how much authority any LA mayor really has under the city charter. If Raman wins, her Council District 4 seat would open, and L.A. Material reports early jockeying to fill it.
Sources: LAist: what's at stake · LAist: the agenda · L.A. Material: how much power does LA's mayor have? · L.A. Material: the race to replace Raman in CD4
Arguments
Endorsing Bass: LA County Democratic Party, LA County Federation of Labor, LA Police Protective League, EMILY's List.
Endorsing Raman: Democratic Socialists of America, Controller Kenneth Mejia, Progressive LA, Unite Here Local 11.
Sources: Bass endorsements · Raman endorsements
In their own words
Paraphrased from the candidates' answers to LAist's questionnaire. Statistics are their own claims.
Karen Bass (incumbent): Top priorities are ending street encampments, public safety and better city services. Would keep focusing on interim housing until the last encampment is gone, citing a 17.5% drop in street homelessness. Says she accelerated 40,000 housing units, updated rent stabilization, launched an infrastructure plan, and oversaw the lowest homicide total since the 1960s. On the Olympics, promises independent audits so taxpayers aren't burdened. Describes her approach to federal immigration enforcement as resistance while demanding the city's fair share.
Nithya Raman (Councilmember, CD4): Top priorities are housing and homelessness, basic city services and safer communities. Would tie homelessness funding to measurable results, publish a real-time public dashboard, and reform or end underperforming contracts. Cites the strongest tenant protections in city history and a 54% cut in encampments in her district; voted against contracts she blames for the city's deficit. On the Olympics, wants enforceable caps on the city's liability. Authored LA's Sanctuary City ordinance.
Criticisms LAist notes: Bass was out of town when the Palisades Fire began, and there were reports she pushed to soften an LAFD after-action report, which she denies; the fire chief she removed is suing. Raman is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and is running to Bass's left.
Sources: LAist: the candidates in their own words · Bass interview transcript · Raman interview transcript
Money
LAist charts contributions to each campaign and to independent committees. Every donor is searchable in the LA City Ethics Commission's data portal; enter a candidate's name under "Committee(s)."
Sources: LAist: campaign finance · LA City Ethics Commission donor search
Measure FD — Fire Department sales tax
Analysis
A citizen initiative from the firefighters' union, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City. It adds a half-cent sales tax in the City of LA, raising the rate from 10.25% to 10.75%, for about $345 million a year until voters end it. The money goes into a special fund only for LAFD: hiring firefighters and paramedics, vehicles and equipment, building and upgrading stations, and brush clearance, with annual audits and a citizen oversight committee. The tax can't be collected unless the city meets a "maintenance-of-effort" rule, meaning it can't cut LAFD's regular budget and replace it with the new money. Per the official list, it needs a simple majority.
The firefighters' union has said the tax could fund about 30 new stations and roughly 1,400 more personnel by 2050 (LA Times).
Sources: Official measure documents (City Clerk) · LAist: Measure FD
Arguments
For: LAFD is understaffed and its fleet is aging, and the Palisades Fire exposed the gaps; a dedicated fund guarantees the money goes to fire protection. Supporters: LA City Firefighters, LAFD Chief Officers Association, CA Professional Firefighters, International Association of Fire Fighters, Mayor Bass and Councilmember Traci Park.
Against: LA's sales tax is already high and falls hardest on lower-income residents; this would be the third sales-tax increase in two years; city leaders should fund LAFD within the existing budget. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association wrote the official argument against.
Sources: Official measure documents (City Clerk) · NBC LA explainer
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Proposition TE — Palisades fire exemption
Analysis
Exempts residential properties damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire from the city's ULA transfer tax (4% above about $5.4 million; 5.5% above about $10.9 million) if sold within five years of the fire by the owner of record on Jan. 7, 2025. Estimated cost: $35–66 million in ULA revenue, which raised about $548 million last year.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 11
Arguments
For: Fire survivors are selling out of necessity and shouldn't pay a tax aimed at luxury sales. Supporters: Councilmember Park, Mayor Bass, Council President Harris-Dawson, Western States Carpenters, Palisades Community Council.
Against: No argument filed. Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez objected that it doesn't exclude LLCs or investors with multiple properties.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 11
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Charter Amendment LA — Budget, public works, contracting
Analysis
Bundles six charter changes: a two-year budget cycle; a mandatory capital infrastructure plan; more authority for the Director of Public Works, with the council able to change or eliminate the Board of Public Works; permission for the city to run business enterprises; permission to mortgage city-owned property; and no competitive bidding for critical-infrastructure and software contracts.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 11
Arguments
For: Clearer accountability and faster repairs. Supporters: Controller Mejia, Councilmembers Yaroslavsky and Blumenfield, former Controller Galperin, Investing in Place.
Against: Councilmember Monica Rodriguez says it weakens a key check on billions in spending and that an infrastructure plan doesn't require a charter change.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 11
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Charter Amendment PL — Planning appeals
Analysis
Replaces Area Planning Commissions with a Neighborhood Appeals Commission; sets up City Council review of its decisions and the City Planning Commission's; changes timing for council action on some planning decisions; lets the Planning Department decide certain quasi-judicial applications; and allows floor-area rules to be changed by ordinance.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 12
Arguments
For: Raymond Meza (chair of the Charter Reform Commission) and the Engineers & Architects Association.
Against: None submitted.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 12
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Charter Amendment EE — Ethics, elections, governance
Analysis
Increases the authority of the LAPD Inspector General and the Fire Department's Independent Assessor; bars Ethics Commissioners from running for certain offices for five years; raises penalties for campaign-finance violations; requires the council to meet at least weekly instead of three days a week; raises referendum signature requirements; and makes other ethics and governance changes.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 12
Arguments
For: Councilmembers McOsker, Yaroslavsky and Harris-Dawson.
Against: Councilmember Monica Rodriguez.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 12
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Charter Amendment PRK — Parks budget
Analysis
Doubles the Recreation and Parks Department's guaranteed minimum budget, phased in over ten years (to fiscal 2036–37), using existing revenue rather than a new tax; suspendable in a fiscal emergency.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 12
Arguments
For: LA ranks 93rd of the 100 biggest cities for parks, and staffing has shrunk while facilities grew. Supporters: Councilmembers Monica Rodriguez, Imelda Padilla and Ysabel Jurado; Controller Mejia; Father Greg Boyle.
Against: No filed opposition, but city fiscal analysts recommended against it because other services would be squeezed.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 12
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Charter Amendment PRT — Airports, Harbor, DWP
Analysis
Requires the Harbor Department to fund waterfront public-access projects; requires disclosure of workforce impacts for certain Harbor leases; allows longer maximum lease terms; and changes the composition rules for the Airport Commission.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 12
Arguments
For: Councilmembers McOsker, Padilla and Park.
Against: None submitted.
Sources: Official ballot label, p. 12
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Charter Amendment SC — LAUSD board campaign finance
Analysis
Clarifies campaign-finance rules for LAUSD Board of Education elections (which the city administers) and lets the council change them by ordinance.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 13
Arguments
For: Councilmember Adrin Nazarian, LAUSD board member Nick Melvoin, League of Women Voters of Greater LA, CA Common Cause.
Against: None submitted.
Sources: LAist · Official ballot label, p. 13
Money
Committees for and against city measures report to the LA City Ethics Commission.
Discrepancies and imprecise framing
| Item | What sources say | Best reading |
|---|---|---|
| Prop 3 expiration | One CalMatters article: 2030. Ballot label: 2031 | 2031, per the official label |
| Prop 3 threshold | $360,000 vs. $371,000 | Same rule; $371K is inflation-adjusted |
| Prop 40 revenue | Sponsor: ~$100B. Official: "tens of billions" | The official range is the neutral one |
| Prop 42 label | CalMatters tabs it "Property taxes" | Misleading: personal property only, not homes or land |
| Prop 44 scope | Summaries say "patient care" | Label: "program services," including but not limited to patient services |
| Prop 5 arguments | CalMatters lists supporters and opponents | No official ballot arguments filed on either side |
| Props 41/42 as "just a NO on 40" | Panelist framing | Both carry permanent effects beyond 40 |
| LA City measures | LAist's index lists four | The official list has eight (PL, EE, PRT and SC were missing) |
| LA Charter PRK base | LAist: 0.0325% of property tax revenue | Appears garbled: the charter ties the floor to assessed value |
City of Los Angeles
Mayor: Karen Bass vs. Nithya Raman
LA has a weak-mayor system. Bass says she'd continue Inside Safe and cites a 17.5% drop in street homelessness; she's backed by the County Dem Party, County Fed of Labor and Police Protective League. Raman would tie homelessness spending to results with a public dashboard; she's a DSA member backed by DSA, Controller Mejia and Unite Here 11. Statistics are the candidates' own claims. LAist guide
City Attorney
John McKinney (Deputy District Attorney) vs. Marissa Roy (Deputy Attorney General). LAist guide
City Council
Only Districts 3 and 9 have races this year. Look up your district at Neighborhood Info.
City measures (eight)
- Prop TE: Exempts Palisades fire-damaged homes sold within five years from the ULA "mansion tax." Costs $35M–$66M in ULA revenue. Supported by Bass and Councilmember Park; no filed opposition.
- Charter Amendment LA: Two-year budgets, infrastructure plan, stronger Public Works director, city may run businesses and mortgage property, no competitive bidding for critical infrastructure and software. Supported by Controller Mejia and others; opposed by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez.
- Charter Amendment PL: Replaces Area Planning Commissions with a Neighborhood Appeals Commission and changes planning procedures. No filed opposition.
- Charter Amendment EE: Stronger LAPD and LAFD oversight, ethics and campaign-finance changes, weekly council meetings, higher referendum signature requirements. Opposed by Councilmember Monica Rodriguez.
- Charter Amendment PRK: Doubles the parks budget floor over 10 years from existing revenue. No filed opposition; city analysts warned it squeezes other services.
- Charter Amendment PRT: Harbor waterfront-access funding, lease workforce disclosures, longer leases, Airport Commission changes. No filed opposition.
- Measure FD: Half-cent sales tax for the LA Fire Department, about $345M a year. Supported by firefighter unions; opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
- Charter Amendment SC: Clarifies LAUSD board campaign finance rules. No filed opposition.
LA County
- Sheriff: Robert Luna (incumbent) vs. Alex Villanueva.
- Judges: see Judges and justices below.
- Measure A: Charter amendment banning strikes by some public-safety employees and creating binding arbitration for public-safety unions. Supported by firefighter and deputy unions; no filed opposition.
- Measure E: Gives the County Ethics Commission more independence and continues community-investment funding. Supported by LWV, Common Cause and Supervisor Horvath; no filed opposition.
- Supervisor and Assessor: No supervisor or assessor races are on the November ballot, per the County's final candidate list.
- Local measures: 66 city, school and district measures countywide appear in the official list and in the ballot app.
Judges and justices
Every LA County ballot has three kinds of judicial contests: four contested Superior Court seats, two state Supreme Court retention votes, and 18 Second District Court of Appeal retention votes.
About the ratings
The LA County Bar Association (LACBA) Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee rates Superior Court candidates on professional ability, experience, competence, integrity and temperament. The ratings are Exceptionally Well Qualified, Well Qualified, Qualified and Not Qualified, and a Well Qualified rating requires over 60% of the committee. LACBA doesn't publish its reasons. It is a private, voluntary association, and some past candidates have questioned the fairness of its process (LAist). The ratings below come from LACBA's 2026 report, as listed in LAist's guide.
The American Bar Association rates only federal judicial nominees, so it has no ratings for any race on this ballot. LACBA does not rate Supreme Court or Court of Appeal justices facing retention.
Superior Court (contested seats)
Names are listed in ballot order.
| Office | Candidate | Ballot designation | LACBA rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| 64 | Rhonda A. Haymon | Deputy Public Defender | Qualified |
| Maria Ghobadi | Deputy District Attorney | Well Qualified | |
| 65 | Justin Allen Clayton | Deputy Public Defender | Qualified |
| Anna Slotky Reitano | Deputy County Counsel | Qualified | |
| 87 | David DeJute | Law Professor/Attorney | Qualified |
| Anthony (A.J.) Bayne | Deputy Public Defender | Well Qualified | |
| 131 | David Ross | Deputy Alternate Public Defender | Qualified |
| Donna Tryfman | Deputy Public Defender | Qualified |
In Offices 65 and 131, both candidates received the same rating, so LACBA's ratings don't separate them. LAist links each candidate's State Bar profile, website and endorsements.
Supreme Court retention
- Kelli M. Evans: Appointed by Gov. Newsom in 2022. Former Alameda County Superior Court judge, civil rights attorney, public defender and State Bar senior director. First time on the ballot.
- Joshua P. Groban: Appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018; formerly Brown's senior policy adviser. Retained in 2022 for an unexpired term; now seeking a full 12-year term.
LAist found no formal opposition to either. Their State Bar ratings at appointment: Evans, Well Qualified (2022); Groban, Exceptionally Well Qualified (2018). Sources: CalMatters, LAist.
Court of Appeal, Second District retention
The Second District hears appeals from LA, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, and voters across the district vote on every justice. Per LAist, the only California appellate justices ever voted out were three Supreme Court justices (Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin) in 1986. Each name links to the court's official bio.
| Justice | Title |
|---|---|
| Michelle C. Kim | Associate justice |
| Gregory J. Weingart | Associate justice |
| Steve Goorvitch | Associate justice |
| Anne Richardson | Associate justice |
| Rashida A. Adams | Presiding justice |
| Mark Hanasono | Associate justice |
| Helen Zukin | Presiding justice |
| Audra M. Mori | Associate justice |
| Nicholas Daum | Associate justice |
| Armen Tamzarian | Associate justice |
| Brian M. Hoffstadt | Presiding justice |
| Tari L. Cody | Presiding justice |
| Kenneth R. Yegan | Associate justice |
| Gonzalo C. Martinez | Presiding justice |
| Natalie Stone | Associate justice |
| John Wiley | Associate justice |
| Matthew A. Scherb | Associate justice |
| Victor G. Viramontes | Associate justice |
Statewide offices
| Office | Candidates |
|---|---|
| Governor | Xavier Becerra (D) vs. Steve Hilton (R) |
| Lieutenant Governor | Fiona Ma (D) vs. Gloria Romero (R) |
| Secretary of State | Shirley N. Weber (D) vs. Don Wagner (R) |
| Attorney General | Rob Bonta (D) vs. Michael Gates (R) |
| Controller | Malia M. Cohen (D) vs. Herb W. Morgan (R) |
| Treasurer | Eleni Kounalakis (D) vs. Jennifer Hawks (R) |
| Insurance Commissioner | Jane Kim (D) vs. Ben Allen (D) |
| Superintendent of Public Instruction | Richard Barrera vs. Sonja Shaw |
Finalists per CalMatters. U.S. House seats use new Prop 50 lines this year.
Key dates
| Date | What |
|---|---|
| Oct. 19 | Last day to register online and still get a mailed ballot |
| Oct. 24 | Select LA County vote centers open |
| Oct. 27 | Last recommended day to mail your ballot |
| Oct. 31 | All LA County vote centers open |
| Nov. 3 | Election Day, polls 7 a.m.–8 p.m. |
| Nov. 10 | Last day for postmarked ballots to arrive |
Track your ballot at BallotTrax. Find vote centers at LAVote.gov.