Protect voting rights
Dear Editor,
Did you know that 1 in 4 Latinos do not currently have drivers licenses with their correct name or address? Or that 41% of citizens between the ages 18 and 24 also have that problem? Proposition 39 intends to prohibit citizens from voting if they do not have identification that is up to date. With the Proposition, we automatically exclude 25% of California's largest minority from voting in elections that directly affect them. We also exclude 41% of young voters from participating in the democratic process as we promised them.
But doesn’t voting “Yes” protect the integrity of voting, and leave it susceptible to fraud? Well, it should be known that voter fraud is found in .0000845% of elections. This percentage is infinitesimal to the outcome of the election. Adding restrictions would benefit no one. Furthermore, it would make it more cumbersome for the citizens who can vote.
Does this truly reflect the idea of American democracy? No, it doesn’t! This proposition tries to silence the voices of those who are trying to make California better for not only themselves, but all of its citizens. If we want to protect the voting rights for all citizens of California, young or old, minority or not, vote “No” on Proposition 39.
— Jeremey Aguilar
Nail with no hammer
Dear Editor,
The health of the individual is the most important thing in California. Why should we take the tools needed to serve us away from clinics? Proposition 44 takes away the freedom of clinics in California to further fill our needs. Restricting the spending of clinics in California to be 90% sounds amazing, but in reality it isn’t. Clinics that aren’t as wealthy will cut corners in administrative facilities such as staff, technology, and property. We will see more staff hired without merit, older technology that can’t withstand the necessary data, and cracks in the property that will draw people away. This could lead to more clinics shutting down and an increase of sick people. These tools that are being taken from clinics, indirectly went to the people. Having the latest technology, high quality merit based staff, and beautiful properties, more people will be drawn to these clinics and they will get better service than they would’ve without these factors. Voting “No” on Proposition 44 will ensure the next clinic you go to will be in the best shape to handle your needs and problems.
— Jose Luis Banuelos
Proposition 40 and its punishing economic impact
Dear Editor,
Are people aware that over 200 individuals with a net worth over $1 billion reside in California? These individuals contribute billions in direct tax revenue every year and their companies are paramount contributors in our economy. If Proposition 40--the one time 5% billionaire tax to fund healthcare, education, and food programs--passes, the economy and its requisite tax revenue would experience a substantial degradation as it has under previous initiatives to tax billionaires. Take, for example, Elon Musk; like him or not, when his company Tesla was headquartered in California, it brought stable jobs and business to the Bay Area and was a major boon to the California economy at large. The relocation of Tesla headquarters to Texas, largely due to California’s high taxation, directly impacted state funding by diminishing corporate and high-income tax revenue along with reducing California’s prestige in the technology sector. This is just one example of billionaires taking their potential tax revenue and corporations to other, more business-friendly states, and a 5% tax on net worth will unquestionably push some of these 200 individuals to relocate. The short-term funding generated from this tax pales in comparison to the potential long-term funding and economic benefits had these billionaires continued to reside in California. Proposition 40 would immediately and permanently decrease California tax revenue; vote NO!
— Kai Bennett
Fixing flaws in California’s recall system
Dear Editor,
There are dangerous loopholes in the way California’s recall system is set up today. When it comes to recalling an elected official, voters end up stuck between making two big decisions over one main concern. We saw this with the recent 2021 voting for the recall of Governor Newsom where voters had to choose not only if they wanted to remove said official but also who they thought should take over in their place. This is a major issue as it complicates the intention behind the recall. Proposition 5 serves as a solution to this matter as it will separate the two by allowing for there to be a temporary official holding the position following a recall. So, while the term is still ongoing, it also allows for a separate election to be held later on so there is not any rushed backup. This would prevent there being a replacement candidate who wins into state office with only a small portion of total votes, while also ensuring that any future elected officials are those who have earned widespread support from the public. By supporting this measure, we can ensure that future recalls reflect the voices of Californian voters without rushed circumstances.
— Amrit Brar
Infrastructure in California
Dear Editor,
I am outraged at the fact that California has the second highest fatality rate due to poor infrastructure. Over 100 people in Sacramento County alone in September of 2025 died due to poor roadways. California’s infrastructure is nearly $300 billion behind due to a several year maintenance shortfall because of their funding of frivolous projects with no end.
Hundreds of people in California should not have to die annually due to the state avoiding putting money into infrastructure. California’s infrastructure grade according to the American Society of Civil Engineers is a C-. Our lowest departments being Ds, which are stormwater infrastructure and roads as well as schools and public parks being D+. This simply cannot stand. We have had roughly $18 billion put into the high speed railway and it will not be done for another 14 years! We are over a decade away from making our high speed railway functional and in that time our infrastructure will fall apart. With these issues standing it is obvious that we need to make a change in our funding and help our infrastructure. Please help make our infrastructure functional again.
— Hunter Cooper
Housing: Not for now, but for the future
Dear Editor,
Just two months ago, Turlock was sued by the State of California. For over 2 years, Turlock failed to comply with the Housing Element Law, which requires cities to meet the housing needs of everyone, regardless of income level. The situation is cutthroat: according to current market trends, Turlock housing deals are closed in only 14 days and with an average gap of $25,000 between resident’s actual income and required housing income. The problem is not only affecting current Turlock citizens, but the future of our community. Although it is simple to attribute the current housing crisis to stagnant wages, inflation, and systemic economic inequality, only urgent development actions taken now are essential to managing the problem before it further escalates. Proposition 1 is the answer. It would dedicate $11.25 billion dollars in bonds for the future of ensuring that California communities, regardless of income, would have a roof over their heads. Citizens would not pay any taxes, as bonds would be sold to investors and later repaid using general fund revenues. Despite the increased cost of $500 to $600 million for 25 years, Proposition 1 is a necessary measure to accommodate the states’ inevitable population growth and an investment for the future of our communities, giving an opportunity for everyone to achieve the homeowning American dream.
— Andrea Diaz-Topete
No on Proposition 40
Dear Editor,
As of 2026 California is home to approximately 200 billionaires, which contribute around $3.2 billion in tax revenue every year. Proposition 40 proposes a one-time 5% wealth tax on resident billionaires with a net worth over $1 billion. Although the state estimates nearly $100 billion will be raised towards healthcare, food assistance programs, and education funding, eventually Proposition 40 will destroy tax revenue in the long run; billionaires will be tempted to leave the state in an attempt to circumvent such tax. In France, an annual solitary tax targeted high income individuals and prompted 40-70,000 millionaires to emigrate, resulting in a substantial loss in capital gains and consumption taxes than the wealth tax ever generated. Sweden also suffered a loss when their wealth levies forced high profile entrepreneurs to flee the country; the resulting revenue shortfalls immediately led to an abolishment of the tax. We as Californians must not be greedy, demanding a one time tax from the wealthy, which historically has led to a net loss in many scenarios. For the sake of our future healthcare programs, our ability to fund food assistance programs, and for continual funding of our education system, vote No on Proposition 40.
— Timothy Elijah
No on Proposition 4
Dear Editor,
While many would argue that Proposition 4 is the solution to a long running issue of private money corruption politics, this can easily be proven to be false, which is why I am asking everyone to vote No on Proposition 4.
Many would argue that Proposition 4 would be a solution to the financial corruption in elections, as it would instead require the state and local governments to create programs that would allow candidates to use public funds for their campaigns. Supposedly, this would prevent the flow of private money in politics. However, this Proposition allows candidates to use public funds, meaning taxpayers would be forced to fund campaigns for candidates or representatives that they may disagree with or downright despise! To add on, there is the very real possibility that taxpayer money would be misused by these politicians, and both of these are reasons why the 1988 Proposition 73 passed in the first place. In the present era, the government has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it cannot be relied on to make decent choices for our wellbeing. Therefore, why would we trust them with the future of our elections by allowing them to cherry-pick what politicians get to access, and very likely, misuse our tax money for their own benefit? So while dark money is a pressing issue in election campaigns, this is not a proper solution, it only allows for the same level of corruption, albeit under a different disguise.
— Christian Howard
In support of Proposition 3
Dear Editor,
The education system is in desperate need of help. According to CAASP, statewide test results have gotten worse every year since 2019. Would you want your kids to be left in the dust because schools need to spend their limited money on other programs? Proposition 3 aims to keep the already passed Proposition 30 (2012) and Proposition 55 (2016), which tax higher income individuals in order to expeditiously give state programs the funds they need, including schools. The higher income individuals need to give up some of their money, because it’s for a greater cause than something selfish they could potentially waste their money on. The California education system needs the funds, among other programs that are essential to the lives of the people. The taxes from this proposition would continue to fund them, and provide a better quality of life for everyone within this state. A supporting vote on Prop 3 would keep the education of the students in California, among others, satisfied.
— Jude Killian
Housing bonds are the best way to fix California’s housing problems
Dear Editor,
Voting “Yes” on Proposition 1 is imperative to helping low-income families, veterans, and farmworkers dramatically reduce housing insecurities. Proposition 1 will allow California to sell $11.25 billion in bonds to fund rental homes, homeownership programs, veteran housing, and many more programs to build and lower costs of housing. With California profits at an all time high due to the unexpected boom in artificial intelligence, it is time to put that money into action and improve the lives of countless Californians. $7.2 billion will go to acquiring, building, and renovating rental properties while giving developers low-interest loans. With these low-interest loans, developers must reserve units for low-income housing for 55 years. By allowing Proposition 1 to pass, it will help reduce the housing crisis that California has faced for many years. This Proposition will also allocate money for housing loans and grants for agricultural workers in California, who provide $310.8 billion annually for the state, according to the University of California. While some may focus on the fact that veterans are supporting the Proposition, yet only getting $1.25 billion, that is $250 million more than they have ever gotten from previous California housing bonds that were designated for veterans. If you want to directly help Californians in all parts of the state, voting “Yes” on Proposition 1 is the best thing you can do to help get rid of housing insecurity for countless Californians and improve the overall quality of life for everyone in the state.
— Travis Looney
What kind of education are we willing to give the next generation?
Dear Editor,
Imagine walking into a classroom where there are fewer teachers, fewer programs, and fewer opportunities for students. Unfortunately, this could become a reality if California loses important education funding.
Our students are already facing serious challenges. According to Calmatters, California’s 2025 test results showed improvement, but only about 49% of students met state standards in English and just 37% met them in math. We are still recovering from years of learning disruption, and the last thing students need is even less support.
Proposition 3 would preserve billions of dollars in annual revenue for California. Voterguide’s statistics on California mention that states that the tax is estimated to generate between $5 billion and $15 billion each year, with 89% of the education funding going toward K–12 public schools. That money can help keep teachers in classrooms and protect programs that give students opportunities beyond the basic curriculum. If this funding disappears, schools could be forced to make difficult decisions, including cutting student programs and reducing staff. Some estimates warn that layoffs could affect as many as one in six educators.
Think about what that means for students. A teacher who is no longer there. A program that gets cut. An opportunity that a student never gets. Education is not something we can afford to treat as optional. Students are the future of our communities, and they deserve the resources necessary to succeed.
— Asia B. Morris
Student pedestrian safety
Dear Editor,
On September 17th, 2026, three children and their grandmother were hit by a vehicle in the crosswalk of Eisenhut Elementary in Modesto. Based on local reports, there was no crossing guard present. This incident demands attention be given to the safety of all students. All elementary schools especially need crossing guards to monitor students before and after school, even in areas where only a few students cross daily. Police presence would also undoubtedly play a helpful role in promoting safety. However, because it is not very practical to have police present at every school each day, other measures must be taken. Flashing school zone speed limit signs need to be installed next to schools. Speed cameras and signs reminding drivers of the consequences of speeding would also be helpful in improving safety. Crosswalks and bike paths should be repainted in bright colors, making them stand out to drivers. On foggy days, flares are essential in crosswalks, and flashing stop signs along with signs warning of an upcoming stop sign would be especially useful. Raised crosswalks can be added to some roads, helping to reduce driver speed and increase visibility of pedestrians. Busy roads could benefit from physical barriers which prevent students from dangerously jaywalking across. At larger intersections, the timing of when crossing is allowed can be modified to allow pedestrians a head start on parallel traffic, making vehicles that may be turning across their path aware of their presence. None of these measures are extremely costly, but all of them would dramatically help increase the safety of our students. To make this reality, all citizens must unite in campaigning for these local changes and show their support with their votes.
— Eli Pimentel
Yes on Proposition 37
Dear Editor,
What if I tell you that owning a home in California wasn't impossible after all? Proposition 37 creates a second-mortgage program to help qualified California homebuyers with the upfront costs of buying a home. This Proposition would allow up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to support the upcoming program, potentially helping buyers who can afford monthly payments but struggle to save enough for a down payment. I believe Proposition 37 is worth supporting because the new owners can now provide families with an opportunity to build more investments and money over time. Some people may worry that the program could create financial risks because lenders would still have to repay their second mortgages for a period of time. However, the program is created to help qualified buyers rather than simply give away money. With California’s high housing costs, many people need assistance to buy a home, the final barrier of limitation towards potential wealth. Proposition 37 does not make homeownership possible for everyone, but it could give more qualified Californian citizens a realistic opportunity to achieve it. For these reasons, I believe voters should support Proposition 37 and make the dream of homeownership achievable for more California families.
— Eli Scott
The wastefulness of Proposition 1
Dear Editor,
While driving home from school every day, my heart always aches to see the countless homeless individuals struggling to live day to day. Something needs to be done about this terrible situation, but throwing another $11.25 billion at it through Proposition 1 will unfortunately do nothing to aid this cause. According to the California State Auditor, the state has already spent around $24 billion on homelessness between the years 2018 and 2023. During this time, the homeless population has only increased by tens of thousands, and California remains the state with the largest homeless population. Not only this, but according to the California Secretary of State, this bill will cost California $500 to $600 million per year for approximately 25 years. That could add up to $15 billion dollars to which this state cannot afford. With California’s spending history, there is no way that this money will be used efficiently. The topic of homelessness needs to be analyzed further before simply throwing more money away, which is why you should vote no on Proposition 1.
— Joseph Silveira
Students shouldn’t worry about the costs of AP exams
Dear Editor,
The question if grants for AP exams should be renewed is alarming. Many high school students know what an Advanced Placement (AP) exam is and how expensive they can be, which is $99 dollars. AP exams allow for students to obtain college credit, potentially saving them thousands of dollars. College is an important focus and often life-changing choice for students in low socioeconomic statuses. As a student at John H. Pitman High School, I have taken multiple AP classes with the hopes of getting into a good college and saving money. When news spread that AP exams might not be paid for, many students had to pick which AP exams they prioritized mostly due to financial situations. According to EdSource, 800,000+ students in California took AP exams in 2025. With the upcoming election of propositions, Proposition 3 would make taxes on high-income earners permanent to help fund education and healthcare, affecting many students. The failure of Proposition 3 would lead to a loss of up to $15 billion in education funding. Students should be able to seek educational funded opportunities in education and not have to worry about financial burdens. We should prioritize the future of our students and vote yes on Proposition 3.
— Sophia Tran
