California ballot measure · November 3, 2026

California Proposition 38, explained

Immunology medical research bond. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.

The official wording

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR IMMUNOLOGY MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. Fiscal Impact: Increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years to repay the research bond, with some or all of the cost offset if the funded research generates revenue.

This is what appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.

What it actually means

Lets the state borrow $8.4 billion for research into immunology and immunotherapy, which use the body's immune system to treat disease. Half would go to one research institute affiliated with the University of California and half to competitive grants. The state would repay the bonds from the General Fund and receive 10% of any revenue from discoveries.

If you vote YES

The state could sell $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds, repaid from the General Fund at an estimated $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years.
About half would go to one immunology research institute chosen by the Department of Public Health; the other half would be awarded as grants by a council of University of California campuses and other California universities and nonprofit research institutions.
At least $4.2 billion must go to research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease, and no more than 2% to state administration.
10% of revenue from funded discoveries would go to the state until the bond and its interest are repaid; treatments developed with the money and sold in California would generally have to be offered at a 20% discount, and grant recipients would have to buy at least half their goods and services from California suppliers when reasonably possible.

If you vote NO

The state would not borrow for immunology research. Medical research in California would continue to be funded mainly by companies, federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, and the state's existing stem cell research bonds from 2004 and 2020.
The state would not take on $500 million to $600 million a year in repayments.

The numbers that matter

Total borrowing: $8.4 billion
Annual repayment cost: $500 million to $600 million for about 20 years
Minimum for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's: $4.2 billion

Why supporters say YES

Immunotherapies are already curing cancers such as melanoma, lung cancer and leukemia; a stable source of research money would speed treatments for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's as federal research funding is cut.
— Official argument in favor, signed by Alzheimer's Los Angeles, the ALS Association and the Kidney Cancer Association
The measure is designed to pay for itself through a 10% share of licensing revenue, requires a 20% discount for California patients, caps state administrative costs at 2% and requires independent audits.
— Official rebuttal, signed by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, the American Nurses Association\California and cancer survivor Andrew Dale

Why opponents say NO

Research priorities should be set by scientific review and public health planning, not by ballot campaigns; borrowing suits long-lived infrastructure, not research whose payoff is uncertain and often decades away.
— Official argument against, by Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., Stanford University School of Medicine
The claim that the bond will pay for itself is speculative, since universities rarely commercialise therapies themselves, and the repayments would reduce the state's flexibility during a continuing structural budget deficit.
— Official rebuttal to the argument in favor, by Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D.

What’s genuinely uncertain

The official argument against was submitted by one individual, Robert M. Kaplan. Ballotpedia lists the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the League of Women Voters of California as opponents; no organised No campaign committee was identified.
The Legislative Analyst says revenue from discoveries is uncertain but could be significant, and offsetting the bond cost could take decades.
Effects on state health program costs, such as Medi-Cal, could go either way depending on whether new treatments raise or lower the cost of care.

The bottom line

A large, dedicated source of money for one promising field of medical research, against 20 years of General Fund repayments and priorities fixed by ballot rather than by later budget decisions.

One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.

Sources:vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov ballotpedia.org

Checking it against the official text

The California Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.

Confirm this with the official source

Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at California Secretary of State.

Other measures on the California ballot

Candidates on the same ballot

Everything on the California ballot →