How Would Eve Vote? California's November 3, 2026 Ballot

These are my picks for all 49 items on California's November 3, 2026 ballot, statewide and San Francisco, as I walked through them on our How Would Eve Vote? episode. They're just my opinions, not advice. For every item, two AI advocates argued opposite sides, a neutral fact-checker checked their claims, and a judge ruled. Each note in my guide follows those rulings, including the best case against my pick, and I double-checked them against their sources. My method is evidence and incentives^[1]: what does it actually do, who pays, who benefits, and what happens if it fails. I give a confidence level for most picks, because some of these are close. My complete guide, with every pick, the best case against it, and sources, is at openballot.app/g/eve.

On the statewide propositions: YES on Prop 1, the housing bond (medium confidence); YES on Prop 2, the rainy-day fund (high); YES on Prop 3, which makes the high-earner tax rates in place since 2012 permanent (medium); a lean NO on Prop 4, public campaign financing (low, a close call); YES on Prop 5, recall reform (medium); NO on Prop 37, up to $25 billion in second mortgages for buyers of newly built homes (medium); NO on Prop 38, the immunology bond (high); NO on Prop 39, voter ID (medium); NO on Prop 40, the one-time billionaire tax (medium); NO on Props 41 and 42 (both medium); NO on Prop 43, the two-thirds rule for citizen-initiated local special taxes (medium); NO on Prop 44, the clinic spending mandate (high); and YES on Prop 45, the CEQA measure (low). For voters in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties: YES on Measure RTM, the regional transit tax (high).

I decide these mechanism by mechanism. Prop 37 is, at heart, a demand subsidy, and I don't think those work in a supply-starved market; Prop 1 has a small demand piece, about 11% of the bond, riding along on a supply-side meal^[2]. Prop 39 writes into the constitution that no ballot counts until a matching ID number is verified^[3], for about 13 million mail ballots, with no cure process in the text; when Texas required matching ID numbers, it rejected 12.38% of mail ballots in its March 2022 primary. On Prop 40, the federal Medi-Cal cuts it targets are real and ongoing, but this tax is one-time money, and I'd rather fund ongoing health care with ongoing revenue^[4], which is why I'm YES on 2 and 3. The real job of Props 41 and 42 on this ballot is to cancel Prop 40; if 40 is bad, the honest move is to vote NO on 40. On Prop 45, I'm narrowly in: it applies the tools that worked for infill housing to clean energy, transmission, water, transit, hospitals and schools, but it also makes freeways and fire-zone subdivisions easier, and it leaves out high-speed rail by design.

For the statewide offices: Xavier Becerra for Governor (medium, without much enthusiasm; he's a cautious insider, but Steve Hilton called for an audit of the 2020 election Joe Biden won, which I consider disqualifying for a state's chief executive); Fiona Ma for Lieutenant Governor (medium; on bringing back the SAT at UC, I actually agree with Gloria Romero); Shirley Weber for Secretary of State (high; Don Wagner is not an election denier, but he wants to roll back universal mail ballots); a lean toward Herb Morgan for Controller (low; Malia Cohen is a defensible vote); Eleni Kounalakis for Treasurer (high); Rob Bonta for Attorney General (high); Ben Allen for Insurance Commissioner (high); John Pimentel for Board of Equalization, District 2 (medium), because he's running to abolish the job; and Richard Barrera for Superintendent of Public Instruction (medium).

In San Francisco: Scott Wiener for Congress in District 11 (high), because on building homes near transit he has the strongest authored record in the state; Connie Chan is a serious candidate, and she differs from him on defensive-arms sales to Israel. Kevin Mullin in District 15, Matt Haney in Assembly 17 and Catherine Stefani in Assembly 19 (all high). Elijah Ball, Monroe Lace and Erwin Tam for the City College board (medium). Ruth Ferguson for the partial term and Joaquin Torres for Assessor-Recorder are unopposed. Manohar Raju is unopposed for Public Defender, and I record a vote for him with serious reservations; a deliberate blank is an equally honest choice. For the Board of Supervisors: in District 2, Stephen Sherrill #1 and #2 blank; in District 4, Alan Wong #1 (medium) and Jeremy Greco #2 (low); in District 6, Matt Dorsey #1 and #2 blank; in District 8, Gary McCoy #1 and Darshini Patel #2 (medium); in District 10, Theo Ellington #1 and J.R. Eppler #2. For the school board, Phil Kim, Autumn Brown Garibay and Tim Tung (low-medium), and Sara Barz, unopposed, for BART District 8.

On the city measures: YES on A (medium); NO on B, the public bank framework (high); YES on C, the Housing Trust Fund (medium-high); YES on D (low); YES on E (medium); YES on F (medium); NO on G (high), which would turn Sunset Dunes into a weekend-only park; YES on H, the Muni parcel tax (high); NO on I (medium); and YES on J (high), which closes a foreclosure loophole on commercial and larger apartment buildings. C and I are both set-asides, and the difference is mechanism^[6]: C phases in, pairs with cutting the inclusionary requirement, and can be frozen when the projected deficit tops $250 million, while I takes effect immediately, is roughly twice the size, and has no deficit exception. Reasonable people can still call that inconsistent.

The strongest case against several of these picks is real, and I said so on the show. If you think a better-designed demand subsidy beats none at all, YES on Prop 37 is defensible. "Let cities try things" is a perfectly defensible YES on Prop 4. Thirty-six states and most developed countries request or require ID, and public trust is a real public good. If you weigh sprawl and wildfire risk heavily, NO on Prop 45 is a reasonable vote. In District 4, Alan Wong supports Prop G and I'm voting NO on G; I rank him first anyway^[5] because on his second day he voted for the Family Zoning Plan.

What would change my mind is the evidence moving. On Prop 39, to be fair to the measure, it prints the required ID type on your mail-ballot envelope and gives free state IDs, which is why I'm medium, not high. If this were in-person ID plus free cards, I'd be much closer to YES. Read both sides, especially on the picks I marked low confidence^[7]. If the evidence moves, I'll correct it publicly, on the episode's page and in my guide.