“A person without a vote is a person without protection” - Lyndon B. Johnson 

We know this is a critical and complicated general election in California, with 14 different propositions on the ballot, often with competing objectives. It is critical that we take the time to thoroughly research these propositions to fully understand what our votes will decide. We also have a general election in the United States, with several long-term environmental issues at stake depending on who is elected to the Senate and House on Tuesday, November 3, 2026. 

I recently attended two separate Town Hall meetings with U.S. Congressman Mike Thompson and U.S. Congressman Jared Huffman. They both recommended voting early if possible and placing your ballot in a secure ballot drop box rather than using the United States Postal Service. This helps ensure ballot security and expediency and that your ballot ends up where it is supposed to go, is received on time, and is counted. 

Regarding Proposition 45, there is an excellent website, noprop45Ca.com, where you can review and research more information about why Prop 45 is not a safe environmental law or a cost-saving idea for California.

There are two main drivers behind Prop 45. One is the California Chamber of Commerce, which is the sponsor of this measure, and its single largest financial contributor is Building a Better California. Roughly $42 million to date has been spent to pass Prop 45, versus approximately $15 million opposing it. 

Prop 45 has substantial support from California's home-building and business development industries, as well as a Silicon Valley/venture-capital component. The financial support behind Prop 45 is prodigious, with several billionaires supporting the measure. One other area to examine with critical thinking is the link between the passage of the law California Prop 45 and what it means and the massive California Forever project proposed to be developed in Solano County with a community of 400,000 people on 17,500 acres.   

We are creating excellent momentum heading into the November 3 election regarding defeating Prop 45. As of September 29, polling shows 49% yes and 46% no on Prop 45, and the "no" trend is increasing as we inch closer to the election and more information is disseminated regarding why a no vote is necessary. 

An interesting side note to Prop 45 is that the proponent of the measure is the law firm Nielsen Merksamer, based in Sacramento. It is the same law firm that created Prop 41 and Prop 42 to directly intersect with the structure of Prop 40.  

The biggest inaccuracy—and the "flashy," simple selling point regarding Prop 45, is that it would, in theory, reduce development costs and create new housing developments by streamlining environmental reviews and the checks and balances required to receive permits to build new projects. 

In theory, this sounds positive. The problem with this strategy is that Prop 45 does not require any savings to be passed on to consumers through lower rents, mortgages, or utility bills. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office, implementing Prop 45 could cost taxpayers $100 million or more a year in environmental harm and cleanup due to the fast-tracking of potentially costly and polluting projects. Prop 45 will not make life more affordable for regular Californians. 

Developments and projects which would be exempt from CEQA compliance could include:

Prop 45 follows in the footsteps of other laws that are part of a broader strategy across the United States, at both the federal and state levels, to substantially reduce or restrict public and government agency—including city council—comment periods (to 30 days) and the judicial review process. 

Prop 45 is a complicated, legalistic, 41-page document and it is impossible to complete sufficient environmental due diligence in 30 days. Limiting public feedback gives communities and environmental organizations less time to identify and respond to environmental problems. 

Another area of major concern with Prop 45 is its limitation on judicial remedies. Prop 45 eliminates the courts' ability to rescind certain project approvals and greatly restricts injunctions, even where a project threatens public health and ecosystems. 

The effectiveness of CEQA—the California Environmental Quality Act—depends heavily on the ability of citizens and organizations to use the courts. Without meaningful judicial review, CEQA loses one of its most important enforcement mechanisms. One of the strengths of CEQA is that citizens, advocacy groups, and the public can act as watchdogs for the environment rather than relying solely on government agencies. If Prop 45 passes, CEQA requirements will be removed from any of the projects that fall in the categories listed above.

Prop 45 is also written to give it authority to prevail over conflicting laws, raising concerns about its interaction with environmental protections involving clean air, clean water, endangered species, and other important environmental safeguards. 

Prop 45 weakens environmental protections in California at a time when the Trump Administration continues to roll back environmental protections at the federal level.  

It is more important than ever for California to defend the laws that protect our public health, air, land, water, oceans, and wildlife. 

Voting "no" on Prop 45 keeps strong protections in place for our public health, land, water, oceans, and wildlife habitat.