California political leaders are racing against a Thursday deadline to keep several expensive and contentious measures off the November ballot, while also preparing their own proposals for voters to consider.
The negotiations, unfolding in Sacramento in the final days before ballot measures can be withdrawn, could shape what Californians see when they vote this fall. For Inland Empire voters and residents across Southern California, the outcome could affect issues ranging from housing and health care to state budget reserves and rideshare safety.
The last-minute bargaining is a familiar feature of California politics. Interest groups often spend millions to qualify ballot initiatives, then use the threat of a statewide campaign to press lawmakers for policy concessions. State leaders, meanwhile, frequently prefer negotiated agreements over unpredictable and costly ballot fights.
Top Democrats have already announced one major compromise: a deal between Uber and California trial lawyers that would pull a pair of competing initiatives from the ballot. Lawmakers also appear ready to place an $11.25 billion affordable housing and veterans homeownership bond before voters. Still unresolved is a proposed tax on billionaire wealth, backed by the state’s largest health care workers union, which Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to keep off the ballot.
Uber and attorneys had been preparing for a costly November showdown before reaching an agreement through the Legislature.
Uber had qualified a measure that would have limited attorney contingency fees and restricted how much crash victims could recover for medical expenses in California — not only in crashes involving Uber rides. Attorney organizations responded with their own initiative, aimed at increasing Uber’s liability in cases involving sexual misconduct against passengers and drivers.
The compromise is contained in Senate Bill 623. Under the bill, recoveries for medical costs would be capped in certain cases involving medical liens, which allow injured people to receive treatment while a legal claim is pending without paying upfront. The measure would apply only to crashes involving Uber or other ride-hailing services. It would not include Uber’s proposed restrictions on contingency fees, which critics said could have made it harder for injured people to find legal representation.
The legislation also would bar attorneys from referring clients to medical providers with whom they have direct financial ties.
Uber, in turn, would be required to strengthen and annually renew driver background checks. Drivers convicted of specified violent crimes or driving under the influence within the previous seven years would be disqualified.
A group of medical providers that had spent money opposing Uber’s initiative did not respond to multiple requests for comment, according to CalMatters. Consumer Attorneys of California, which had raised about $77 million for its campaign, also declined to comment beyond a joint statement with Uber. Uber had committed about $78 million to its effort.
“This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures,” the statement said.
Consumer Watchdog, which had opposed Uber’s measure, described the compromise as a balanced outcome. 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 the governor, the bill would take effect next year.
At the same time, a major affordable housing bond is moving closer to the November ballot. Newsom, the Assembly and the Senate 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, acquisition, rehabilitation and preservation. An additional $1.25 billion would go toward helping veterans purchase homes.
If voters approve the bond, Newsom’s administration says it could help more than 40,000 people buy homes, support the creation or preservation of tens of thousands of affordable units and generate well-paying 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 proposal comes as California continues to struggle with a severe housing shortage and high costs that have strained families across the state, including in fast-growing Inland Empire communities. A recent report found that nearly 40,000 planned affordable housing units in California are ready to move forward but remain stalled because of funding gaps.
The bond is not yet officially on the ballot. The Legislature must pass the bill by Thursday, and Newsom must sign it.
The biggest unresolved fight centers on a proposed tax targeting California’s wealthiest residents.
Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West is pushing a one-time 5% wealth tax on the state’s roughly 200 billionaires. The union says the measure would raise about $100 billion, with most of the money going to health care and smaller portions set aside for schools and food programs.
SEIU-UHW argues the revenue is needed to offset federal health care cuts that have forced California to reduce spending in Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for low-income residents and people with disabilities.
Newsom has emerged as a strong opponent of the proposal and has intensified pressure on the union in recent days. He has been joined by other influential organizations, including the California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association, which have run digital ads opposing the tax.
Opposition has also come from billionaires and Silicon Valley figures, who argue the measure would backfire by encouraging wealthy residents to leave California and reducing state revenue over time.
Last week, SEIU-UHW suggested a scaled-back version of the tax at 2% instead of 5%. Newsom quickly rejected the idea, calling it “poorly designed.”
In an interview with The Lever, SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said Newsom might still find a way to negotiate a compromise but 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 let California save more money during strong budget years.
The state currently cannot deposit more than 10% of general fund tax revenue into its rainy day fund. Newsom and legislators have discussed raising that limit for years, and the idea has gained urgency as California faces a multiyear budget deficit despite rising revenues.
California’s finances are especially sensitive to swings in the economy because the state relies heavily on income taxes and capital gains from its highest-earning residents. Supporters of the proposed change say allowing the state to build larger reserves could help cushion future downturns.
As the deadline nears, California leaders are trying to narrow the list of high-stakes measures headed to voters. But unless a late deal emerges, the billionaire tax could remain one of the most closely watched fights on the November ballot.
Original source: CalMatters
