California officials are racing against a Thursday deadline to determine which high-stakes measures will go before voters in November, with negotiations still unresolved over a proposal to tax the state’s billionaires.
The final days before ballot measures can be withdrawn have become a familiar part of California politics. Interest groups often spend heavily to qualify initiatives, then use the threat of an expensive statewide campaign to negotiate policy changes at the Capitol. State leaders, in turn, frequently prefer compromise over leaving controversial questions to voters.
This year’s last-minute bargaining has already produced one major agreement: Uber and California trial lawyers have agreed to stand down from competing ballot measures that could have cost each side tens of millions of dollars. At the same time, lawmakers are moving forward with proposals of their own, including a major affordable housing bond and a plan to let California save more money during strong budget years.
For Inland Empire voters, the November ballot could include measures affecting housing, health care, state finances and the legal rules surrounding ride-hailing crashes.
Uber had qualified a ballot measure that would have limited attorney contingency fees and restricted the amount crash victims could recover for medical costs. The proposal would not have been limited to Uber-related crashes. Trial attorney groups, meanwhile, qualified a competing measure aimed at increasing Uber’s liability in cases involving sexual misconduct against riders and drivers.
Instead of taking those measures to voters, both sides reached a deal through Senate Bill 623. The legislation would limit medical cost recoveries in cases involving medical liens, which are arrangements that allow injured people to receive treatment while their legal cases are pending. The bill would apply only to crashes involving Uber and other ride-hailing services.
The compromise does not include Uber’s proposed limits on contingency fees, a provision critics said could have made it harder for crash victims to obtain legal representation. The bill also would bar attorneys from recommending medical providers with whom they have direct ties.
Uber, under the agreement, would be required to strengthen driver background checks and renew them annually. Drivers convicted of certain violent crimes or driving under the influence within the past seven years would be disqualified.
Consumer Attorneys of California had raised about $77 million for its ballot campaign, compared with about $78 million Uber had set aside for its effort. The attorneys group and Uber declined to comment beyond a joint statement saying the agreement “protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”
Consumer Watchdog, which had opposed Uber’s measure, said the compromise was reasonable. Jamie Court, the group’s president, told CalMatters the bill “doesn’t do harm to the average Uber rider (who has health insurance).”
If approved by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the bill would take effect next year.
Another major measure appears likely to reach voters: an $11.25 billion affordable housing bond. Newsom and legislative leaders have agreed on language for Senate Bill 417, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026.
The measure would ask voters to authorize $10 billion in borrowing for affordable housing construction, rehabilitation, acquisition and preservation. An additional $1.25 billion would be set aside to help veterans purchase homes.
The Newsom administration says the bond could help more than 40,000 people buy homes, create or preserve tens of thousands of affordable units and support construction jobs.
“California’s future depends on whether people can afford to put down roots, raise a family, and build a life here,” Newsom said in a statement.
The issue is especially significant across Southern California, where high rents and home prices continue to strain working families. A recent report found that nearly 40,000 affordable housing units planned across California are ready for construction but remain stalled because of a lack of funding.
The housing bond is not yet officially headed to the ballot. Lawmakers must approve it by Thursday, and Newsom must sign it.
The largest unresolved fight centers on a proposed billionaire wealth tax backed by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the state’s largest health care workers union.
The union’s proposal would place a one-time 5% tax on California’s roughly 200 billionaires. SEIU-UHW estimates it would raise about $100 billion, primarily for health care, with some funding reserved for schools and food programs.
Union leaders say the money is needed to offset federal health care cuts that led California to reduce Medi-Cal, the state health insurance program for low-income residents and people with disabilities.
Newsom has opposed the tax and has increased pressure on the union to drop the proposal. Other labor groups, including the California Teachers Association, and health care organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association have also opposed the measure and run digital ads against it.
Billionaires and Silicon Valley business leaders are also fighting the proposal, arguing it could reduce state revenue over time by prompting wealthy residents to leave California.
SEIU-UHW recently suggested a scaled-back 2% version of the tax, but Newsom rejected it, calling the proposal “poorly designed.”
In an interview with The Lever, SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said it was still possible Newsom could find a compromise, but he expressed skepticism.
“We’re prepared to go forward, and we will be on the ballot in November,” Regan said.
Lawmakers are also expected to vote this week on a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow California to put more money into reserves when state revenues are strong.
Under current law, deposits into the state’s rainy day fund are capped at 10% of general fund tax revenue. Newsom and legislators have discussed increasing that limit for years.
The proposal comes as California faces a multiyear budget deficit despite rising revenues. State leaders are looking for ways to stabilize finances in a system that depends heavily on income taxes and capital gains from high-income residents, making the budget especially vulnerable when the economy weakens.
Original source: CalMatters
