If all the statewide bond and tax measures being floated hit the California ballot, voters will have much to wade through come November.
Statewide bond measures include
Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, introduced Senate Bill 895, a $23 billion bond measure to establish the California Foundation for Science and Health that would fund scientific research into health, agriculture, pandemic threats and wildfire resilience.
First included in a different bill in September, S.B. 895 was re-introduced on Jan. 16. It is a response to Trump administration threats to reduce scientific research funding. It still awaits its first committee hearing.
The bill would make pharmaceuticals developed through this research available to Californians at a discount; allows the state to recoup a portion of licensing and royalty fees from inventions created through bond-funded research and allows the state to produce pharmaceuticals to sell them at cost to Californians and for profit to other states.
"Science has fueled California's prosperity for decades," Wiener said in a statement. "Now it's time to spread the benefits of that prosperity to all Californians, preserving our scientific leadership while lowering health care costs for families."
Wiener's bill is supported by Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and University of California President James B. Milliken.
"Reductions in federal funding are already disrupting critical UC research that supports thousands of jobs, drives medical innovation, and leads to life-changing solutions that benefit everyone," Milliken said in a statement. "The university is grateful for Sen. Wiener's efforts to ensure that UC remains the greatest research university in the world."
The Regents of the University of California ended up
Trump targeted East Coast schools earlier in 2025, claiming those universities failed to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestine demonstrations fueled by the war between Israel and Hamas. He also has threatened university research there and in California over claims of anti-Semitism stemming from the protests, the illegal use of race in admissions and for policies that allow transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity.
UC Regents will be back in the market next week. J.P. Morgan Securities and Siebert Williams Shank & Co. are joint senior managers on the $2 billion in revenue bonds in two tranches.
The preliminary offering documents note the Regents are "monitoring the federal government's actions" with respect to the university system. It also notes the Trump administration had threatened UCLA's grant funding.
Court decisions in two separate lawsuits have preliminarily ordered the federal government to reinstate $584 million in grant funding, according to bond documents. The judge also restricted the federal government's ability to seek payments or impose penalties or fines in connection with civil rights investigations or violations, or to withhold funding from the university.
The federal government has appealed the lower court rulings in both lawsuits.
The POS also states that no assurances can be made that future actions or changes to federal policies won't materially adversely affect the university's financial condition.
California has a track record of approving bond measures to fund scientific research.
In 2020, voters approved Proposition 14 authorizing $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to support grants for stem cell research. It was the second authorization for the institute, after voters approved $3 billion of bonds in 2004 through Proposition 71.
All eyes on wealth tax
What seems to be drawing the most attention in the lead up to the midterm election, however, is a
The battle over the billionaire's tax has drawn some heavy hitters for and against before supporters have collected enough signatures to place it on the November ballot.
Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and St. John's Community Health in Los Angeles launched efforts to get the billionaire's tax on the ballot. Their aim is to make up for tax cuts from H.R. 1, The One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The measure would dedicate 90% of revenues from the tax to healthcare services. The remainder would be spent on administration of the wealth tax, education and food assistance.
SEIU-UW President Dave Regan has said the tax is the only solution to cover a $20 billion annual funding gap in the state created by federal tax cuts H.R. 1.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, was in Los Angeles Wednesday for a rally to support the measure.
"At a time of unprecedented and growing wealth consolidation and income inequality, I strongly support the grassroots effort in California," Sanders said.
"This initiative would provide the necessary funding to prevent over three million working-class Californians from losing the healthcare they currently have — and would help prevent the closures of California hospitals and emergency rooms," Sanders said. "It should be common sense that the billionaires pay just slightly more so that entire communities can preserve access to life-saving medical care. Our country needs access to hospitals and emergency rooms, not more tax breaks for billionaires."
Mayra Castaneda, an ultrasound technologist at St. Francis Medical Center, said organizers are grateful for Sanders' support.
"If we let these healthcare cuts stand, my patients will suffer," Castaneda said. "Hospitals and ERs will close, others will be strained by taking on more patients, and people will lose access to life-saving care."
Sergey Brin, former president and current director of Google's parent company Alphabet, is leading the opposition.
Brin created a political action committee, called Building a Better California, which is backing a slew of citizen initiatives from attorney Kurt Oneto, as a counterattack to the wealth tax. The five measures have cleared the California Attorney General's Office and supporters can begin gathering signatures.
Among these is Initiative
Others would raise the threshold required to pass tax measures from a simple majority to two-thirds; would change the rules around who counts as a California resident, disqualifying anyone with an out-of-state driver's license who is registered to vote in another state and spent less than 183 days in the state per year. The fifth measure would ban new taxes on personal property or financial assets or anything retroactive — the billionaire's tax would be retroactive to 2025 taxes to prevent people from moving to avoid paying.
Both the California Chamber of Commerce board and California Business Roundtable oppose the tax.
"The ballot is increasingly where California's biggest economic decisions are being made," said Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable. "At both the state and local level, we are seeing measures that would raise costs, discourage investment and make it harder for employers to stay and grow here. Our board took unanimous positions to give voters and policymakers a clear signal about what helps — and what harms — California's economy."
The California Legislative Analyst's Office said in a Dec. 11
The wealth tax needs 874,641 signatures to be placed on November's ballot. Even if supporters reach that threshold, they will still need to convince voters to back it.
While California has previously targeted the income of millionaires, through a 1% tax that pays for mental health and housing for homeless people, approving a wealth tax targeting net worth as opposed to earnings is new ground.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has never supported a wealth tax and has opposed this one.
Nuveen's municipal credit research team said in a report on the proposed tax that legal and procedural hurdles make implementation highly uncertain.
The potential flight of billionaires isn't likely to affect California's coffers greatly, because they represent less than 1% of the state's personal income tax revenue, Nuveen researchers said. And strong reserves and economic diversification help protect the state's credit worthiness regardless of the outcome, researchers said.
Among the procedural issues Nuveen highlights is the initiative circumvents the mandate that 40% of general fund revenues go to schools, which could result in a legal challenge.
Researchers also point to the LAO report, which says the measure trades future tax revenue for a lump-sum payment, assuming the billionaires leave the state. The LAO's worst-case scenario predicted a $900 million loss of annual income if all 200 billionaires left the state.
But Nuveen notes if that were to occur, based on 2024 personal income tax collections of $116.3 billion, the potential loss represents only 0.8% of total personal income tax revenue.
The state is rated Aa2/AA-minus/AA from Moody's, S&P and Fitch Ratings, which Nuveen said reflects a solid credit profile built on the nation's largest state economy, diverse revenue base and improved fiscal management.
Despite Brin and some others' threats to flee, Nuveen said past tax changes in other states didn't result in that occurring. When Massachusetts imposed a 4% surtax on income over $1 million, critics predicted an exodus, Nuveen said. It didn't happen, and the tax raised $5.7 billion.
"Deep roots, business connections, family ties and quality-of-life factors that keep billionaires in California are unlikely to be overcome by a one-time tax, particularly when weighed against the substantial costs and disruptions of relocation," Nuveen researchers wrote.
