Proposition 37: Creates Loan Program for Middle-Income Buyers of Qualified New Homes. Initiative Statute.
Statewide — all of California
General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026
- Placed on the ballot by petition signatures (citizen initiative), per the Official Voter Information Guide.[4]
The question on the ballot
CREATES LOAN PROGRAM FOR MIDDLE-INCOME BUYERS OF QUALIFIED NEW HOMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes up to $25 billion in bonds to offer eligible buyers fixed-rate mortgages for up to 17% of the purchase price of a "qualified new home" (new construction or first sale of converted nonresidential property, priced below about $1 million–$1.5 million, depending on county, adjusted annually). Borrowers must be California residents for one year, occupy the home, earn less than twice the area's median income, and pay at least 3% down. Requires that bonds be repaid by homeowners' mortgage payments, not the State.[1]
Allows the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) to sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund a "middle-class homeownership loan" down payment assistance program covering up to 17 percent of a new home's price (buyers put down at least 3 percent). Buyers must be state residents with household income no more than double the area's typical income and be the first purchaser of the home; home prices are capped. Developers may opt into a "qualified builder option" with higher labor standards in exchange for different construction defect rules. Homeowners' monthly payments repay the bonds. Fiscal impact per the Legislative Analyst: no direct state or local costs; broader effects depend on unknowns such as investor demand and whether the program increases homebuilding.[1][2]
A YES vote means
The state would create a new homebuying assistance program. The state could sell up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to fund the program. Bonds would be paid back by homeowners' payments on their home loans.
A NO vote means
The state would not be required to create a new homebuying assistance program.
The law today
The state sells general obligation bonds (usually repaid from the General Fund) and revenue bonds (repaid from fees or payments by users). The California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) administers programs to help low- and moderate-income Californians afford housing, including down payment assistance loans that must be repaid under certain terms. State law sets minimum standards for new residential construction and a process homeowners and builders must follow, including notice to the builder, before a homeowner can sue over alleged construction defects.[2]
Official fiscal estimate
Legislative Analyst: because homebuyers' payments repay bond investors, no direct state or local costs. Other effects are unknown, including investor demand for the bonds, how the loans' cost compares with other down payment assistance, and whether the program increases home construction and homebuying.[2]
Arguments made for
- Official argument in favor, signed by Danny Curtin (California Conference of Carpenters), Fiona Ma (CalHFA board member) and David West (California State Commanders Veterans Council): "Proposition 37 creates affordable homeownership opportunities for working and middle-class Californians and encourages new home construction—with ZERO COST TO TAXPAYERS."[3]
- Same argument: "Loans are funded by private bond investors and repaid by home borrowers—not taxpayers."[3]
Arguments made against
- None found in public sources.
On record in support
- Yes on 37, California Homeownership (the registered ballot measure committee).[5]
- California Conference of Carpenters, CalHFA board member Fiona Ma and California State Commanders Veterans Council (signers of the official argument in favor).[3]
- California Teachers Association and United Nurses Association of California (named as supporters in the official argument in favor); State Controller Malia Cohen (quoted in it).[3]
- California Democratic Party, Xavier Becerra, California Association of Realtors and SEIU (listed in CalMatters' voter guide).[6]
Campaign money
Support: $19,618,927 reported by Yes on 37, California Homeownership. Opposition: no committees identified. Source: Cal-Access totals as compiled by the Secretary of State from specified reports, through 10/06/2026.[5]
Research notes & limits
All text from the Official Voter Information Guide. No argument against Proposition 37 was submitted, so there is no official opposing argument or rebuttal; argumentsAgainst is empty rather than filled from outside sources. Signature counts not stated in the pages reviewed.
Sources · 6
Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.
- 1.Proposition 37: Official Title and Summary · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (Nov. 3, 2026) · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 2.Proposition 37: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst · California Legislative Analyst's Office, via Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 3.Proposition 37: Arguments and Rebuttals · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 4.Proposition 37: Summary and What Your Vote Means · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 5.2026 Ballot Measure Contribution Totals: Proposition 37 (through 10/06/2026) · California Secretary of State · 2026-10-19 Official record
- 6.CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide: Proposition 37 (endorsements) · CalMatters · 2026-10-19 News report