Voting-Clarity.org

Plain-language, sourced explanations of your ballotNovember 3, 2026 · Los Angeles County

Proposition 38 — $8.4 Billion State Borrowing for Immunology Research

Current as of October 19, 2026 · voting-clarity.org

November 3, 2026 California ballot. AI-generated analysis. Your sample ballot and official voter guide are the official documents; the links below let you check each claim. This page explains what is on the ballot; it is not legal advice.

Voting Clarity's research is done by Claude, an AI made by Anthropic. Anthropic gave no money to either side of this measure [1].

Summary

Proposition 38 lets California borrow $8.4 billion for immunology research, the study of how the body fights disease. The General Fund, the state's main budget account, would repay it, about $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years.[2] Half the money goes to one nonprofit institute. The other half goes out as grants to a council of California research institutions.[3][4][5]

The state Department of Public Health picks the institute under narrow rules. CalMatters, a nonprofit news outlet, reports that a University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) spokesperson confirmed only one nonprofit tied to that campus could meet them: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy. Its co-founder and board chair, billionaire Gary Michelson, is one of the measure's two chief backers.[6]

The council is seven University of California (UC) campuses plus 10 to 15 other California institutions, and only its members can get grants. At least $2.1 billion of each half must go to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's research.[5][7] Treatments sold in California must be priced at least 20% below the national average.[8] The institute would not be a public agency, so the public records, open-meeting, and ethics laws would not apply to it.[9]

Lawmakers can change the law only with a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature and the Governor's signature, and only if the change furthers its purposes. They cannot change how the bond money is divided or what it can be spent on.[10]

For: Susan Disney Lord (board chair, Alzheimer's Los Angeles), Eugene P. Brandon, Ph.D. (board of trustees, ALS Association, a group for people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Dr. Brian Shuch (board member, Kidney Cancer Association), Andrew Dale (cancer survivor, Santa Monica), Anne M. Holloway (board member, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research), and Chris Tarver, R.N. (president, American Nurses Association\California), who signed the official argument or rebuttal in favor.[2] The largest funder is Gary K. Michelson, who gave $40 million.[11]

Against: Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., a former National Institutes of Health official now at Stanford University, the only signer of both official opposition statements.[2][6] The one No committee's largest reported contribution was $5,000 from one individual.[12]

Your Vote

YES — The state borrows $8.4 billion for immunology research and repays about $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years.[2]

NO — The state does not sell these bonds, and no institute or grant council is created.[2]

No double negative. It is a regular state law put on the ballot by petition, not a constitutional change.[2] It passes with more than half of the votes cast.[13]

Today vs. if Prop 38 passes

WhatTodayIf it passesEffect
BorrowingNo state immunology bond program [2]$8.4 billion in bonds [14]; about $500–600 million a year for about 20 years [2]General Fund pays, about 0.25% of its budget a year, per the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the Legislature's nonpartisan fiscal adviser [2]
The institute (half)CalMatters: likely institute already got $200 million from the state budget [6]Health department picks one nonprofit [3]; up to $100 million start-up loan from the General Fund, repaid from bonds [15]One institute gets about $4.2 billion
Grants (other half)NoneCouncil members only; no for-profits [5][2]UC Merced, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz not eligible [5][6]
TopicsNo requirementAt least $2.1 billion of each half to three diseases [7]$4.2 billion steered to cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's
Money backNone10% of recipients' discovery revenue until bonds and interest are repaid [16]LAO: uncertain, offset "could take decades" [2]
Drug pricesNo such rule found20% below national average [8]Lower price in California only
OversightNo institute existsNot a public agency [9]; 2% state cost cap [17]; annual audits [18]; citizens' committee [19]Less public access; some audits

In the law, but not in the official summary

These items are not in the official title and summary or the official analysis.[2]

Who is affected, and who is not

Affected: state taxpayers, since the General Fund also pays for schools, health care, and prisons.[2] The institute.[3] The seven UC campuses on the council and the partners they choose.[5] California buyers of treatments developed with this money.[8]

Not affected: for-profit and drug companies, which cannot get grants.[2][24]

Key Questions Answered

Does the label match? Partly. The official summary says half goes to "a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit," but not that only one existing institute could meet the criteria, per CalMatters' report of a UCLA spokesperson.[2][6] The campaign told CalMatters the criteria are not tailored to one institute.[6]

Does it bundle unrelated things? No. The price rule and a California-supplier goal are tied to the funded research.[25][8]

What guardrails exist? Grantee overhead is capped at 20%.[26] The state can end the institute's agreement only if failures "substantially and materially frustrate" the measure's purposes, after a chance to fix them.[27] The text sets no end date.[28]

Supporters, opponents, and funding

Also for: patient groups including the Alzheimer's Association, ALS Association, and Prostate Cancer Foundation, citing faster cures and lost federal funding.[2] The Michelson Center for Public Policy, the California Democratic Party, American Association of Immunologists (a society of immunology researchers), and City of Hope (a cancer center).[29]

Also against: League of Women Voters of California (a nonpartisan civic group): "Borrowing is a poor way to pay for ongoing scientific research."[30] Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (a taxpayer group) and the Orange County Register editorial board.[31] Three retired LAO analysts, including former health section head Dan Carson, who told KQED, a public media outlet, the "no net cost" claim will not happen.[32]

Funding. Cal-Access, the state's campaign filing database, shows $66,223,427 given in 2026 to the main Yes on 38 committee, in filings through October 16, 2026: Gary K. Michelson, $40,000,000; the Michelson Center for Public Policy's Yes on 38 committee, $13,000,000; Michelson and the Center together, $8,200,000; Meyer Luskin, chief executive of Scope Industries, $5,000,000; and the California Democratic Party, $23,426.95 in in-kind support.[33][34] The one No committee reported $8,782 through October 11: $5,000, $3,141.88 and $250 from three individuals, and $389.76 in in-kind support from California Health Policy Strategies, LLC, which CalMatters says leads the No campaign.[12][29]

Details

Institute criteria include a nonprofit existing by January 1, 2025, with a UC affiliation and $250 million in donations.[35]

Cost estimates. An earlier LAO and Department of Finance estimate (December 17, 2025) said about $500 million a year for 25 years.[36]

Stem cell bond record. By 2020 the state had received about $350,000 in invention revenue from the $3 billion Proposition 71 (2004) stem cell program.[37]

When Forty Seven, a company the stem cell agency heavily funded, sold to Gilead for $4.9 billion, the state received none of it. KQED reported most of the agency's first $3 billion went to institutions with ties to board members.[38] In March 2026 the agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), announced Food and Drug Administration approval of a therapy for a rare immune disease, possibly its first.[39]

Sources

  1. California Secretary of State, Cal-Access, Anthropic PBC (filer 1491817), contributions made, as of Oct. 16, 2026: https://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1491817

  2. Official Voter Information Guide, Prop 38, pp. 44–45: title and summary, LAO analysis, arguments and rebuttals; signers read from the guide's online arguments page

  3. Text of Proposed Law, Prop 38, Sec. 130352

  4. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130354

  5. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130355

  6. CalMatters, July 31, 2026 (secondary)

  7. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130354(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2)(B)

  8. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130358(b)

  9. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130363(a), p. 131

  10. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 7, p. 133

  11. Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) top-contributor list, Nov. 2026 election, modified Oct. 14, 2026

  12. Cal-Access, No on Proposition 38 (ID 1495405), contributions received and late reports, read Oct. 19, 2026

  13. California Constitution, art. II, §10(a): vote needed for initiative statutes

  14. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130372

  15. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130353(e), p. 126

  16. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130358(a)

  17. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130354(a)(3)

  18. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130361

  19. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130362

  20. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130353(b)(2), p. 126

  21. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130363(b), (d), p. 131

  22. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130356(e)(2), p. 128

  23. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130357(d)–(e), p. 128

  24. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 3(b)

  25. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130357(c)

  26. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130357(g)

  27. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130353(c)

  28. Text of Proposed Law (full measure text; no sunset section found)

  29. CalMatters voter guide, Prop 38, modified Oct. 13, 2026 (secondary)

  30. League of Women Voters of California, ballot recommendations (secondary)

  31. LAist voter guide, updated Oct. 14, 2026 (secondary)

  32. KQED, Oct. 2, 2026 (secondary)

  33. Cal-Access, Yes on 38 committee (ID 1485847), contributions received and late reports, read Oct. 19, 2026

  34. Cal-Access, Michelson Center committee (ID 1494727), read Oct. 14, 2026

  35. Text of Proposed Law, Sec. 130353(a)

  36. LAO/Department of Finance fiscal estimate, Dec. 17, 2025

  37. LAO analysis of Prop 14 (2020)

  38. KQED on Prop 14, 2020 (secondary)

  39. CIRM blog, March 27, 2026 (secondary)

Reviewed in the original: official voter guide section and full Prop 38 legal text (pages 123–133); the CalMatters investigation and voter guide; the LAist guide; the KQED 2026 transcript; the LAO's Prop 14 (2020) analysis and December 2025 fiscal letter; the League of Women Voters recommendations page; and Cal. Const. art. II, §10. Re-read for this revision: the voter guide's online arguments page (signers), the FPPC top-contributor list, the CalMatters voter guide, the Yes and No committees' Cal-Access pages (Oct. 19), the text of proposed law, and the KQED, LAist, CIRM and LAO Prop 14 pages.

Could not be reviewed: the cost figure in the LAO and Department of Finance letter (December 17, 2025) was not re-read for this revision; the letter's date was confirmed, the figure is carried from the approved page, and the official guide notes opponents cite about 25 years. The Michelson Center committee's own Cal-Access page was not re-opened; its $13,000,000 to the Yes committee appears on the Yes committee's filings.