California ballot measure · November 3, 2026

California Proposition 45, explained

Faster environmental review for essential projects. 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

MODIFIES ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Amends California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to expedite environmental review for certain projects (including most housing, transportation, water, and health projects) by setting deadlines to complete environmental review and resolve lawsuits challenging project approvals. Fiscal Impact: Initial costs for state and local governments, likely in the high tens of millions of dollars—potentially exceeding $100 million—annually, partly covered by fees. Uncertain, potentially more significant positive or negative longer-term fiscal effects.

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

What it actually means

Creates an optional faster track under the California Environmental Quality Act for projects it defines as essential: housing, water, clean energy, health facilities, public safety stations, wildfire risk reduction, broadband, schools and transportation. It sets binding deadlines for reviews, permits and lawsuits, narrows parts of the review, and limits what courts can consider and order.

If you vote YES

Applicants for eligible projects could choose the new procedures, which set binding time limits for completeness decisions, permits and environmental impact reports (365 business days for an EIR), with the right to a hearing or lawsuit if an agency misses them.
Agencies would have to list all required application information up front, judge impacts under the rules in place when the application was filed, and could consider a single alternative developed by the applicant rather than a range developed by the agency.
Tribal consultation would be limited to federally recognised California tribes, and public comment periods would have a maximum length.
Courts would face deadlines, a narrower scope of review, and could halt only the non-compliant part of a project rather than the whole project.
Delta water conveyance, nuclear power and high-speed rail would not be eligible. State and local costs would likely be in the high tens of millions of dollars a year at first, possibly over $100 million, partly covered by fees.

If you vote NO

Projects would continue under existing CEQA procedures, where agencies set review timelines, can request additional information or changes, and must develop and consider multiple alternatives to reduce environmental impacts.
Minimum, not maximum, public comment periods would continue, and consultation would include a wider range of tribes.
Courts could continue to stop an entire project if an agency did not follow CEQA, until the problem is fixed.
Existing exemptions, such as for certain housing near transit, would continue to apply.

The numbers that matter

Initial state and local cost: High tens of millions of dollars a year, potentially over $100 million, partly covered by fees
Deadline to finish an environmental impact report: 365 business days

Why supporters say YES

Delays, red tape and lawsuits raise the cost of housing, electricity and water; enforceable timelines would make essential projects faster and cheaper, and permitting delays alone add more than $75,000 to the cost of a new home.
— Official argument in favor, signed by the California Children's Hospital Association, the California Water Association and the California Council for Affordable Housing
The measure keeps every environmental law in place and exempts no project from review; residents keep their right to comment, oppose and sue, and it applies only to essential projects.
— Official rebuttal, signed by the California Children's Hospital Association, former State Fire Marshal Ruben Grijalva and the Family Business Association of California

Why opponents say NO

The measure narrows CEQA review and public input, letting projects advance with less scrutiny of harm to air, water and public health; it was written by the California Chamber of Commerce and funded by gas and electric utilities.
— Official argument against, signed by the Coalition for Clean Air, Clean Water Action and California Environmental Voters
Nothing in the measure requires lower rents, mortgages or utility bills, and more pollution near homes and schools would leave taxpayers and ratepayers paying for cleanup and health costs.
— Official rebuttal to the argument in favor, signed by the American Nurses Association California, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice and Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles

What’s genuinely uncertain

The Legislative Analyst says the long-term fiscal effect could be larger than the initial costs but cannot say whether it would be positive (more and faster projects, lower project costs, more tax revenue) or negative (costs of responding to environmental impacts).
How many applicants would choose the new procedures over existing ones is not known.
The $75,000 per-home figure comes from supporters, not the Legislative Analyst.

The bottom line

Faster, more predictable approval of housing, water, energy and other projects, against narrower environmental review, public input and court oversight.

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 →