Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. 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
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research (technologies that use body's immune system to treat disease), with half dedicated to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. Allocates funds equally between (1) a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, and (2) research grants for public or nonprofit universities and institutions. Requires funding recipients to sell technology and drugs derived from research in California for 20% below national average price. Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds; General Fund receives 10% of licensing royalties until bonds are repaid.[1]
Allows the state to issue an $8.4 billion general obligation bond for immunology and immunotherapy research, repaid from the General Fund. At least $4.2 billion must go to immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease, and state administrative costs are capped at 2 percent. About half goes to a research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health; the other half goes as competitive grants awarded by a council of UC campuses and other California universities and research institutions. Ten percent of revenue from funded discoveries goes to the state, first to repay the bond. Treatments sold in California must generally be offered at a 20 percent discount, and grant recipients must buy at least half of goods and services from California suppliers when reasonably possible. Fiscal impact per the Legislative Analyst: $500 million to $600 million per year for about 20 years from the General Fund; the state could recover part or all of that if the research generates revenue, which is uncertain and could take decades.[1][2]
A YES vote means
The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.
A NO vote means
The state could not borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy conducted by California research institutes and universities.
The law today
Medical research is funded mainly by companies and government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (about $300 billion nationally in 2023). California voters approved Proposition 71 (2004) and Proposition 14 (2020), which together allowed the state to issue $8.5 billion in general obligation bonds for stem cell research.[2]
Official fiscal estimate
Legislative Analyst: repaying the bond would cost the General Fund $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years (about 0.25 percent of the General Fund budget), about 10 percent more (inflation-adjusted) than paying up front. The state could receive revenue from funded research; the amount is uncertain but could be significant and could take decades to offset the bond cost. Indirect effects on state health program costs, such as Medi-Cal, are uncertain.[2]
Arguments made for
- Official argument in favor, signed by Susan Disney Lord (Alzheimer's Los Angeles), Eugene P. Brandon, Ph.D. (ALS Association) and Dr. Brian Shuch (Kidney Cancer Association): "PROP. 38 is designed to pay for itself WITH NO NET COST TO THE STATE OR TAXPAYERS. Ten percent of revenue from the licensing of successful immunotherapies must be returned to California to offset the costs of the bond, including interest."[3]
- Same argument: "PROP. 38 accelerates development of breakthrough treatments and cures for the diseases that impact nearly every family. At least half of all funds are specifically dedicated to cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's research."[3]
Arguments made against
- Official argument against, signed by Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D. (Stanford University School of Medicine): "California recognizes that continued investment in science is essential. But this proposition is not the best way to achieve that goal."[3]
- Same argument: "borrowing is an inappropriate way to finance scientific research" and "research priorities should be established through scientific review and public health planning—not by election campaigns."[3]
On record in support
- Yes on 38: Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures (sponsored by the Michelson Center for Public Policy), and the Michelson Center for Public Policy committee.[5]
- ALS Association, Alzheimer’s Association, American Nurses Association\California, Blood Cancer United, California Colorectal Cancer Coalition, Liver Coalition, Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society and Parkinson Association of Northern California (listed in the official argument in favor).[3]
- Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, Kidney Cancer Association and ALS Association representatives (signers of the official argument in favor).[3]
- American Association of Immunologists, City of Hope and California Democratic Party (listed in CalMatters' voter guide).[6]
On record in opposition
- Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., Stanford University School of Medicine (signer of the official argument against).[3][4]
- No on 38, led by California Health Policy Strategies (CalMatters' voter guide); a committee named No on Proposition 38 is registered with the Secretary of State.[6][5]
- League of Women Voters (listed in CalMatters' voter guide).[6]
Campaign money
Support: $64,215,472 reported by two committees (Yes on 38: Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures, $51,215,472; Michelson Center for Public Policy, Inc. Yes on 38, $13,000,000). Opposition: $3,782 reported by No on Proposition 38. 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. Arguments are the authors' opinions and not checked by any agency. The official summary lists a single named opponent (Robert M. Kaplan) and several patient-advocacy supporters.
Sources · 6
Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.
- 1.Proposition 38: Official Title and Summary · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide (Nov. 3, 2026) · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 2.Proposition 38: Analysis by the Legislative Analyst · California Legislative Analyst's Office, via Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 3.Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals · California Secretary of State, Official Voter Information Guide · 2026-10-05 Official record
- 4.Proposition 38: 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 38 (through 10/06/2026) · California Secretary of State · 2026-10-19 Official record
- 6.CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide: Proposition 38 (endorsements) · CalMatters · 2026-10-19 News report