California
Prop 45Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects
What your vote does
A NO vote means
Current CEQA rules stay. Detailed environmental reports (when needed) must consider multiple alternatives. Courts can stop a whole project if CEQA was not followed correctly. 3
Both ovals are empty on purpose. The choice is yours.
Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects. Initiative Statute. 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. Supporters: California Children’s Hospital Association; California Water Association; California Council for Affordable Housing Opponents: Coalition for Clean Air; CA Environmental Voters; Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA; National Wildlife Federation
This is the exact wording from the official voter guide.
If it fails
Nothing changes if it fails
If Prop 45 fails, the current environmental review rules stay. The Legislative Analyst (LAO) says agencies now study a project's effects on the environment before they approve it. People can sue if they think the agency broke the rules. 3
Why it’s on the ballot now
A state law called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an agency to consider how a project might harm the environment before approving it. 3
Agencies must seek and consider public comments, with a minimum comment period but no maximum. For eligible projects whose applicants choose the new procedures, the measure would cap comment periods and limit tribal consultation to federally recognized tribes. 3
People can sue if they think an agency did not follow CEQA. If the court agrees, it can stop the whole project and require the agency to fix the problem. 3
Most projects need no detailed environmental impact report, and some housing near transit is exempt. Many also need other permits, and agencies can repeatedly ask for more information or changes. 3
The measure's findings, which argue for it, say California's system for approving essential projects is "too slow, too bureaucratic, and too costly" and that delays raise the "cost of living." 5
The money
The Legislative Analyst says initial state and local costs would likely reach the high tens of millions of dollars a year, potentially over $100 million, partly covered by fees. Longer-term effects, positive or negative, are uncertain but could be larger. See the money chart for the latest filed totals. 3
- Amount
- Likely high tens of millions of dollars a year at first, potentially exceeding $100 million
- How long
- No end date; higher costs likely during the first several years
- Who pays
- The LAO says state and local governments, including state courts, likely would pay higher costs in the first several years. Fees paid by project applicants and people filing lawsuits would cover some. Later, it says, some costs could continue, but fewer lawsuits could cut agency and court costs. To the degree public projects get built faster, governments likely would have lower project costs, and more completed projects could raise tax revenues. But approving projects with negative environmental impacts that would not have otherwise occurred could raise agencies' costs to respond. 3
Who bears the cost
State and local governments, including state courts
If it passes
- The LAO estimates state and local costs, including courts, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars a year at first, maybe over $100 million. It says some costs could later decline, for example if fewer people sue. 23
- The LAO says the longer-term effect could be positive or negative and is uncertain. It depends partly on how many eligible projects get built and whether they have different effects on the environment. 2
Project applicants and people who file lawsuits
If it passes
- The LAO says fees paid by project applicants and by people who file lawsuits would cover some of these costs. Applicants could choose the new procedures or the existing ones. 3
Who’s behind it
How it got on the ballot: Citizen petition
The ballot label calls it an "Initiative Statute." The legal text says this initiative measure "is submitted to the people" under Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. 15
Where the support comes from
Placed by who endorsed it and who funded it, not by our opinion. How we place measures
The California Republican Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayer group, recommend Yes on Prop 45, while the California Democratic Party recommends No. GrowSF, an advocacy group, and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, a business group, also support it, while the League of Women Voters of California, a good-government group, and the San Francisco Green Party oppose it. The largest donors to committees supporting Prop 45 are Building A Better California and CA Business PAC. The largest donors to committees opposing it are Wendy Schmidt and Clean and Healthy California, Sponsored By Environmental Organizations. 10119671281314
Endorsements
| Group | YES | NO | Neutral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive slate | |||
| San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters | No | ||
| Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Moderate slate | |||
| GrowSF | Yes | ||
| San Francisco Chamber of Commerce | Yes | ||
| Political parties | |||
| San Francisco Democratic Party | No | ||
| San Francisco Green Party | No | ||
| California Democratic Party | No | ||
| California Republican Party | Yes | ||
| Other groups | |||
| SPUR | No position | ||
| YIMBY Action | No position | ||
| San Francisco Women's Political Committee | No | ||
| Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club | No | ||
| Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club | Yes | ||
| Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | Yes | ||
| League of Women Voters of California | No | ||
Follow the money
YESTop donors
- Building A Better California$7.9M
- CA Business PAC$3.1M
Who is this?
Political committee of the California Chamber of Commerce, a business group. A Times of San Diego report calls it CalChamber's Business PAC. 1
- California Building Industry Association$2.6M
- PG&E Corporation And Affiliated Entities$2.4M
Who is this?
PG&E Corporation owns Pacific Gas and Electric, based in Oakland. It sells gas and electricity to 5.2 million households in northern California. 1
- California Association Of Realtors$1.2M
- Building Industry Association Of Southern California, Inc.$900K
- Lennar Corporation$738.3K
Who is this?
Home construction company based in Miami-Dade County, Florida. It also offers mortgage, title and insurance services. 1
- Sempra$687.5K
Who is this?
Sempra owns utilities in Texas and California, including San Diego Gas & Electric. Its website says they serve about 40 million consumers. 1
- PG&E Corporation And Affilaite Entities$500K
Who is this?
PG&E Corporation owns Pacific Gas and Electric, based in Oakland. It sells gas and electricity to 5.2 million households in northern California. 1
- Bloom Energy Corporation$447.8K
Who is this?
Company that designs and makes fuel cells, which produce electricity on site. It is based in San Jose, California. 1
- The top 5 donors gave 55% of this side’s money.
- 4% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $84.9K
Committees: Building Industry Association of Southern California Issues PAC - Yes on 45; Building Resilient Infrastructure for a Decarbonized Green Economy Issues PAC (BRIDGE Issues) Yes on Prop 45, Funded by PG&E Corporation; California Building Industry Association Issues Committee Supporting Proposition 45; Yes on 45 - Building a More Affordable California, a Coalition of Water, Affordable Housing, Clean Energy, Small Business, Healthcare & Community Leaders
NOTop donors
- Wendy Schmidt$10M
- Clean and Healthy California, Sponsored By Environmental Organizations$7.1M
Who is this?
A political committee. A Press Democrat report calls it an environmental PAC. 1
- California State Council of Laborers Issues PAC$1.5M
Who is this?
This PAC is named for the California State Council of Laborers. A candidate's website says the Council represents more than 70,000 union construction workers and is the political voice of LiUNA. 1
- Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California$1.2M
Who is this?
A committee named for the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. The council's website says it is the state affiliate of North America's Building Trades Unions, with 157 affiliated unions. 12
What they’ve said
Council president Chris Hannan said in a statement to The Sacramento Bee, “We oppose Prop. 45 because it would gut longstanding protections for public and environmental review.” 3
- Disctrict Council of Iron Workers of the State of California Vicinity$994.7K
Who is this?
A district council of Iron Workers in California, Arizona, Hawaii and Nevada. Its stated mission is better pay, benefits and work conditions for ironworkers through collective bargaining. 12
What they’ve said
Dave Osborne, the council's president, said Prop 45 would “strip every California family of their right to ensure projects built in their community are safe.” 3
- International Union of Operating Engineers Local 12$994.7K
Who is this?
Local 12 of the International Union of Operating Engineers. It has training sites for apprentices in Southern California and Southern Nevada. 1
- Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 Issues Advocacy/
Ballot Initiative PAC$994.7K Who is this?
Committee named for Operating Engineers Local 3. The union's website says it has more than 37,000 members, most of them heavy-equipment operators. 1
What they’ve said
Local 3 recommended a NO vote on Prop 45, the Building an Affordable California Act. Its list says the measure could compromise labor standards on projects. 2
- Southern California District Council of Laborers Issues PAC$994.7K
Who is this?
Committee named for a district council of Laborers unions in Southern California. The Rebuild SoCal Partnership's website says the council has 14 affiliated local unions. 1
- State Building and Construction Trades Council of California Independent Expenditure PAC$823.9K
Who is this?
A committee of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. A profile of its president says the council represents nearly 500,000 members across 14 crafts. 1
What they’ve said
Council president Chris Hannan told The Sacramento Bee, “We oppose Prop. 45 because it would gut longstanding protections for public and environmental review.” 2
- Kat Taylor$500K
- The top 5 donors gave 68% of this side’s money.
- 3% came from outside California.
- Independent spending (not controlled by the campaign): $77.4K
Committees: Campaign for People Over Polluters, No on Prop. 45, Sponsored by Environmental & Healthcare Organizations; No on Prop 45 - Protect California Communities; No on Prop 45, Sponsored by Labor, Health and Environmental Organizations; No on Prop. 45, SMART Local 105 PAC; Working People in Supporting of Prop 3 and in Opposition of Prop 39, 43 and 45, Sponsored by Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO
- California Building Industry Association Issues Committee Supporting Proposition 45 (FPPC 1353866) supports or opposes several measures; the Secretary of State attributes $7,009,737 of its $10,196,208 to this one. Donor amounts here are scaled by that same share (69%).
- California Building Industry Association Issues Committee Supporting Proposition 45: added $186,791 of 24-hour late contributions dated after the Secretary of State's 2026-10-22 cutoff.
- Yes on 45 - Building a More Affordable California, a Coalition of Water, Affordable Housing, Clean Energy, Small Business, Healthcare & Community Leaders (FPPC 1484853) supports or opposes several measures; the Secretary of State attributes $28,230,874 of its $35,682,874 to this one. Donor amounts here are scaled by that same share (79%).
- Yes on 45 - Building a More Affordable California, a Coalition of Water, Affordable Housing, Clean Energy, Small Business, Healthcare & Community Leaders: added $912,010 of 24-hour late contributions dated after the Secretary of State's 2026-10-22 cutoff.
- YES side: $8,253,433 given by one committee on this side to another was counted once.
- YES side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $84,899, mostly by: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS $75,000; Reform California with Carl DeMaio - Ballot Measure Committee $8,000; REPUBLICAN PARTY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY $1,899. Separate from total_raised.
- Campaign for People Over Polluters, No on Prop. 45, Sponsored by Environmental & Healthcare Organizations (FPPC 1493079) supports or opposes several measures; the Secretary of State attributes $1,880,513 of its $9,623,396 to this one. Donor amounts here are scaled by that same share (20%).
- Campaign for People Over Polluters, No on Prop. 45, Sponsored by Environmental & Healthcare Organizations: added $2,220,000 of 24-hour late contributions dated after the Secretary of State's 2026-10-22 cutoff.
- No on Prop 45 - Protect California Communities (FPPC 1479255) supports or opposes several measures; the Secretary of State attributes $9,421,588 of its $9,471,866 to this one. Donor amounts here are scaled by that same share (99%).
- No on Prop 45 - Protect California Communities: added $100,000 of 24-hour late contributions dated after the Secretary of State's 2026-10-22 cutoff.
- No on Prop 45, Sponsored by Labor, Health and Environmental Organizations: added $1,201 of 24-hour late contributions dated after the Secretary of State's 2026-10-22 cutoff.
- NO side: $2,985,120 given by one committee on this side to another was counted once.
- NO side independent expenditures (Form 496) of $77,399, mostly by: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 11 Political Action Committee $50,000; Senator Menjivar Ballot Measure Committee $8,886; Million Voter Project Action Fund, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations $5,299. Separate from total_raised.
- Committee totals are the Secretary of State's per-measure 'Total Reported Contributions' through 2026-10-22 (secretary of state page), plus later 24-hour reports from the Cal-Access bulk export built 2026-10-28. Donors, geography and independent expenditures come from the itemized Cal-Access filings. Contributions to committees that back several measures are credited pro rata to the share the Secretary of State assigns to this measure.
- Source cutoff: the Cal-Access export used was built 2026-10-27 (UTC) and the Secretary of State's per-measure totals run through 2026-10-22. as_of is the latest filing from this measure's own committees, which can be earlier.
- Money given to a committee by another committee is shown as that committee, not the money's original source (e.g. a union's issues PAC, not its members). Donor type is inferred from the name; check the filing for sponsors.
Sources: CA Secretary of State: Proposition 45 contribution totals · Cal-Access raw campaign finance data export · FPPC Top 10 Contributors, November 2026 General Election
The strongest case for and against
Each side’s best argument, written as its supporters would make it. Neither is our view.
Strongest case for
Supporters listed on the ballot label include the California Children's Hospital Association, the California Water Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing. They say delays, red tape and "frivolous lawsuits" block needed projects and raise the cost of living. Supporters argue Prop 45 sets "enforceable timelines" and a faster, more predictable process for legal challenges. They say permitting delays add more than $75,000 to the cost of a new home, and that Prop 45 "will help lower rents and mortgages." They argue it helps lower electricity costs and helps keep projects on time and on budget. Supporters say it "does not exempt a single project from environmental review." They say cities and counties keep "full authority to approve or deny projects," and "residents keep a meaningful voice." 14
Strongest case against
Opponents listed on the ballot label include the Coalition for Clean Air, CA Environmental Voters, Physicians for Social Responsibility, LA and the National Wildlife Federation. They say Prop 45 limits environmental review of major new projects and "the public's right to be heard." Opponents argue it reduces agencies' duty to consider public comments, which they say often expose "potential contamination of air and water." They say weaker review means more pollution near homes and schools, and more asthma. Opponents argue it does not require any project to lower rents, mortgages or utility bills. They say it gives developers new rights to challenge cities and counties, while making it harder for project opponents to successfully challenge an agency's decision. They argue that when polluters don't clean up, taxpayers and ratepayers pay. 14
Sources
Every fact on this page links to one of these sources.
- Ballot label: title (table of contents) and summary (Quick Reference Guide), Proposition 45 (en edition), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 3, 11
- Proposition 45: Official Title and Summary (prepared by the Attorney General), CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1
- Proposition 45: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-4
- Proposition 45: Arguments and rebuttals, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 5-6
- Proposition 45: Text of Proposed Law, CA Official Voter Information Guide, Nov 3, 2026, p. 1-17
- GrowSF: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- San Francisco Chamber of Commerce: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- San Francisco Green Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Democratic Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- California Republican Party: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- League of Women Voters of California: recommendations for the November 3, 2026 election
- How endorsers line up on Prop 45: this guide's coalition groupings (endorsement method 1.0, data as of 2026-10-27)
- Campaign finance filings as of 2026-10-26 (compiled by this guide from CA Secretary of State: Proposition 45 contribution totals; data/money/ca-2026-11-p45.json, main@0dcbec8)