What’s on the Nov. 3 ballot?

The city council helps decide on local laws and controls the budget for the city. Incumbents Emily Francis and Michelle Shoresman are running for the two open seats in city council along with Brett Cross.

The mayor is the chief executive of the city and oversees multiple departments. Incumbent Mayor Erica Stewart is running for re-election without opposition. 

California assemblymembers represent constituents in the California Assembly. The 30th district represents most of San Luis Obispo County, along with portions of Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. 

The two candidates running for these positions are Republican Shannon Kessler and incumbent Democrat Dawn Addis.

READ MORE: Addis, Kessler lead District 30 Assembly primary race

United States representatives represent their district and its constituents in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 24th district represents most of San Luis Obispo County, along with all of Santa Barbara County and portions of Ventura County. 

The two candidates running are incumbent Democrat Salud Carbajal and Republican Bob Smith.

The governor oversees the state in its entirety, reviews bills passed by state lawmakers and plans the state budget. 

Two candidates are in the running as Gov. Newsom’s predecessor. The two candidates running are Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton.

READ MORE: Steve Hilton, Xavier Becerra lead primary governor race

The lieutenant governor position is mostly ceremonial but is necessary in case the governor steps down or is removed. 

The two candidates are Democrat Fiona Ma and Republican Gloria Romero. 

The secretary of state overlooks all federal and state elections including oversight on campaign finances. 

The two candidates are Republican Donald Wagner and Democrat Shirley Weber. 

The attorney general represents California in court and takes high-profile state and federal cases. The two candidates are Democrat Rob Bonta and Republican Micheal Gates. 

The state treasurer oversees California’s budget and taxpayer money. 

The two candidates running are Republican Jennifer Hawks and Democrat Eleni Kounalakis. 

The controller is the state’s lead accountant responsible for overseeing the spending in the state and compensating government employees. 

The two candidates running are Democrat Malia Cohen and Republican Herb Morgan.

The state superintendent of public instruction is a nonpartisan proposition that will promote policies that affect almost six million students in public schools. 

The two candidates are Richard Barrera and Sonja Shaw, neither with a party affiliation. 

The insurance commissioner is responsible for overseeing California’s property and insurance industries. 

The two candidates are Democrat Ben Allen and Democrat Jane Kim. 

The board of equalization sets the value of property taxes across the state. 

The two candidates running for second district are Democrat Sally Lieber and Democrat John Pimentel. 

The governor appoints Supreme Court justices, but voters determine if a appointee becomes a California Supreme Court Justice. Voters this year can decide to keep the justices or get replacements. 

The incumbent justices are Kelli Evans and Joshua Groban.

Proposition 1 would allow the state to sell $11.25 billion of bonds to affordable housing programs, such as multifamily rental housing and mortgages for veterans. If passed, it could cost the state $500 million and $600 million for the next 25 years to repay the bond.

Supporters for the proposition argue this will assist residents that are homeless, cannot purchase a home or pay rent. 

Opponents argue borrowing more money for these issues does not address the issue itself of why housing is expensive. 

Proposition 2 would allow the state to deposit 20% of its tax fund into state reserves. It would provide funding for education, public safety and health care. The funds can also be used to pay off the state’s $20 billion federal unemployment insurance debt. State budget reserves would be higher.

Supporters argue raising the state’s reserve ceiling can build a stronger reserve in case of economic hardships.

Opponents voiced concerns over politicians using the reserves as a loophole to not give taxpayers refunds.

Proposition 3 would require individuals with higher incomes to pay more taxes for education and health care by making a 2012 high earners tax permanent.

Supporters argue the tax is crucial for schools financially, potentially leading to program cuts and downsizing staff. 

Opponents argue the tax can lead to high income Californians to leave the state due to the already high income taxes within the state. 

Proposition 4 would create public campaign funds for candidates at local and state levels. Public programs would be prohibited from using funds for transportation, education and public safety.

Supporters argue the proposition gives smaller candidates with less funding from private donors the incentive to run for office.

Opponents argue the proposition can cause taxpayers to fund campaigns for politicians they wouldn’t want in office and voice cost concerns.

Voters would no longer be able to vote if an elected official should be recalled and who would replace them in the same election. Proposition 5 would delay the process of replacing any recalled state officials until a separate election is conducted. 

Supporters argue that recall elections should not be centered around who would better suit a vacant role but rather if that official should be recalled.

Opponents argue that having separate elections would lead to the public not participating in recall elections. 

Proposition 37 would create loan programs for middle-income individuals who want to take out a mortgage on a house. 

Supporters argue that the proposition makes homeownership more realistic for lower-income individuals without taxing that same class. 

Opponents argue the proposition will not address California’s high cost of living and concerns over the state government having involvement in mortgages.

Proposition 38 would authorize an $8.4 billion bond to fund medical research for fighting cancer. Half of the funding would go to one University of California-affiliated nonprofit. The bond would create a projected $500 million to $600 million increase annually to repay the bond over the next 20 years and would be paid back through research profits. 

Supporters argue the funding is necessary for immunology research due to attempted budget cuts from the Trump administration to health science research. 

Opponents argue that the proposition should not just focus on one form of research and voiced concerns over why the nonprofit should receive a majority of the bond’s funds.

Proposition 39 would require citizens to show a form of government-issued identification when voting to prove they are U.S. citizens and registered to vote. This means voters would continue to register to vote by bringing a social security number or identification card.

Supporters argue a majority of states require identification to vote and argue it will strengthen the public’s trust in voting processes.

Opponents argue that making identification a requirement will prevent those with disabilities or without required documents from voting in elections. 

Proposition 40 would apply a one-time tax to billionaires. Those proceeds would go to funding health care and education. 

Supporters argue the proposition is necessary to support low-income individuals who cannot afford health insurance due to Congress’s cuts to Medi-Cal. Support groups voiced concerns over layoffs and cuts to hospital funding.

Opponents argue the proposition can cause billionaires to leave California and create a bigger decrease in tax revenue. Health care groups claimed they were not consulted in drafting  the proposition and voiced concerns about unaddressed long-term financial challenges for the state.

Proposition 41 would create stricter special tax approvals by the state auditor. The state auditor would review any special tax proposals before they are sent to voters.

Supporters argue that despite California’s high taxes, important programs are not receiving funding, and it should be the auditor’s responsibility to determine whether the programs need the special taxes.

Opponents argue the tax is not about managing public program funding but instead “tricks” voters into not implementing wealth taxes on billionaires.

Proposition 42 would make it more difficult to create a wealth or higher-income tax in California, including for assets or property.

Supporters argue that California should not tax individuals for managing retirement accounts or valuable assets.

Opponents argue the proposition will also “trick” voters into not implementing a billionaire tax and make it nearly “impossible” to impose future taxes onto billionaires.

Proposition 43 would make it more difficult to increase local taxes for local government services by increasing the percentage of votes needed to pass the tax. This means a measure or tax would need to pass by a two-thirds majority vote. 

Supporters argue low voter turnout elections and special interest groups have taken advantage of former methods of voting to pass these special taxes. 

Opponents argue this proposition would limit local services’ abilities to raise revenue and not prioritize a majority of voters’ wants. 

Proposition 44 would require community clinics serving low-income individuals to spend 90% of their revenue on patient care annually. 

Supporters argue that the proposition will require clinics to spend more on patient care than compensation for executives. They voiced concerns over federal cuts leaving individuals uninsured. 

Opponents argued that these fees can lead to downsizing in services and staff at health care facilities. They voiced concerns over community clinics’ federal and state legislation regulation.

Proposition 45 would increase the speed of environmental reviews for housing and infrastructure.  

Supporters argue that the state’s environmental laws are “outdated” and need updates but still need to keep important environmental protections in place. They voiced concerns that delays in project reviews can trickle down to taxpayers. 

Opponents argue the proposition can “harm” laws that are in place to protect the environment and California residents from unsafe developments. They voiced concerns over rushed planning and reviewing falling onto taxpayers.