US Election Endorsements 2026

California Measures

✅ YES on Proposition 1

Proposition 1 establishes the Affordable Housing Bond Act Trust Fund and authorizes $11.25 billion in state funds to be used for housing affordability programs, with $10 billion going to state housing programs and $1.25 billion to veteran assistance. These programs would ensure housing security for the most vulnerable while helping to grow home ownership for low and middle income families.

The proceeds would be allocated as follows:

• $7.2 billion to acquire, build, or renovate rental housing
• $1.1 billion for homeownership loan programs and housing development
• $500 million for infrastructure projects, such as water, sewage, parks, and transportation
• $450 million for loans or grants for farmworker housing
• $350 million for student housing, split evenly between University of California and California State University
• $200 million for grants to tribes for housing projects
• $200 million for local governments developing pilot projects to reduce housing costs

The current volatility of the game development industry has put so many of our members and colleagues into difficult decisions simply to house and provide for themselves and their families. UVW-CWA believes the programs funded by Prop 1 would provide relief for millions of people and a path towards more affordable housing in California, and so encourages members to vote YES on Proposition 1.

✅ YES on Proposition 3

In 2012, California voters enacted higher income taxes on the state’s highest earners. Of the revenue these measures have raised, the majority has gone to K-12 public schools or community colleges, with the rest going to public healthcare.

These measures are set to expire in 2031. Prop 3 would extend them permanently, making the following tax rates permanent:

• 10.3% for >$361k single income
• 11.3% for >$433k single income
• 12.3% for >$721k single income

If not passed, tax rates for all of the above would return to a 9.3% maximum in 2031.

Based on data provided by our dues-paying members, we can say for a fact that none of our membership is making enough to be affected by these rates. But the game industry’s executive class certainly is. UVW-CWA encourages members to vote YES on Proposition 3 as an important step towards evening out income inequality and making wealthy execs pay their fair share.

✅ YES on Proposition 4

In 1988, California enacted a ban on any public funding for election campaigns at any level (with the exception of some city office positions). As a result of this ban, running for office in California requires candidates to either be independently wealthy, or to solicit the support of wealthy donors, whose money often comes with strings attached to serve their interests.

Proposition 4 ends this ban and allows state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs for candidates who agree to specified spending limits and meet eligibility criteria. Public campaign funding helps bridge the gap of who can feasibly run for office without the unspoken quid pro quo to the interests of the wealthy. UVW-CWA believes that helping to elevate candidates that are directly beholden to their constituents benefits all citizens with or without direct access to the levers of power, and so encourages members to vote YES on Proposition 4.

❌ NO on Proposition 39

Proposition 39 is part of a slew of legislation in the vein of the federal SAVE Act - adding on more requirements and restrictions to voting in the name of "eliminating voter fraud", which has been widely debunked as a systemic issue in American elections. 

Specifically, Prop 39 requires:

• In person voters to present government issued ID for verification
• Mail in voters to provide the last 4 digits of their government issued ID on their ballot envelope
• California's Secretary of State and county voting officials to regularly maintain and purge voter rolls
• California auditors to audit state and county compliance every other year

Proponents of Prop 39 market it as “reasonable election integrity measures”, but the truth is that voter fraud is not a systemic issue: voter turnout is. And every obstacle placed in front of a citizen drives turnout lower when it is the right of all citizens to freely cast their vote in an election. UVW-CWA believes that access to elections benefits everyone, and so encourages members to vote NO on Proposition 39.

✅ YES on Proposition 40

Prop 40, better known as “the billionaire tax”, would require the estimated 200-250 individuals in California with a net worth greater than $1 billion to pay a one-time 5% tax, with all revenue earmarked for healthcare, food assistance, and education.

The measure was introduced by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, who project it will raise roughly $100 billion over five years. Several of our very own UVW members were personally involved in canvassing to get it on the ballot. 

It’s opposed by a rogue’s gallery of tech-oligarchs, which one might expect when you look at who those estimated 200 billionaires are. Some of those adjacent to the game industry include: 

• Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Meta)
• Tim Cook (CEO of Apple)
• David Baszucki (CEO of Roblox)
• Mark Pincus (co-founder and current executive chairman of Zynga)
• Palmer Luckey (founder of Oculus and Anduril)

Our members have repeatedly told us that income disparity between workers and executives is one of their strongest motivators to unionize. UVW-CWA enthusiastically supports this measure and strongly encourages members to vote YES on Proposition 40.

⚠️ Propositions 41 and 42 were explicitly designed to sabotage Proposition 40. Proposition 40 may meet its 50% pass threshold, but if either Prop 41 or Prop 42 gets even more yes votes, then Prop 40 will be nullified.

❌ NO on Proposition 41

Prop 41 is billed as a proposition that creates extra measures to vet voter-led tax initiatives. However, it is specifically engineered to not just require these extra measures from future voter initiatives, but to apply to any new taxes enacted from 2026, which means that it will retroactively apply to any tax measures on this very ballot. Conveniently, the only new voter-led tax introduced on the 2026 ballot is Prop 40, the billionaire tax.

The particular measures Prop 41 wants to put into effect are extra audits of any tax measure as soon as it gets 25% of its required signatures to qualify for the ballot. The State Auditor must review and write up a report to be included in the state voter guide at that threshold. If the taxes go into effect, then more audits must take place of each tax every 4 years. Since Prop 40 has not gone through such an audit before getting on the ballot, it would be voided if Prop 41 passes. Prop 41 masks itself as a reasonable transparency measure when its true purpose is to sabotage Prop 40, even if Prop 40 gains the support of the majority of California voters. UVW-CWA encourages members to vote NO on Proposition 41.

❌ NO on Proposition 42

Prop 42 is a ban on any taxation on personal property, such as business interests, financial assets, etc. Supporters of Prop 42 will put all the emphasis on preventing taxes on retirement accounts, but Prop 42 also prohibits taxes on investment accounts, valuable property like vehicles and art, digital currencies, and more. Importantly, these kinds of personal property assets are some of the most common ways that the wealthy dodge paying their fair share in taxes, as they don’t have to be reported as income. 

Prop 40’s billionaire tax knows these kinds of income reporting tricks well, and so explicitly calculates a person’s net worth across their asset ownership. Prop 42 is written to apply to any taxes that go into effect starting in 2026, which means it captures Prop 40 in its attempted ban. Prop 42 markets itself as a measure to protect the working Californian’s retirement, but make no mistake: it is written for the interests of California’s wealthiest residents, and its first goal is to strike down Prop 40. UVW-CWA encourages members to vote NO on Proposition 42.

Massachusetts Measures

✅ YES on Question 2

Question 2 would allow the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS) the right to unionize and collectively bargain with the state. This committee is the state’s public defender organization and is responsible for providing criminal and some non-criminal legal services to people who are entitled by law to legal representation: specifically, "those unable to afford an attorney in all matters in which the law requires the appointment of counsel”.

UVW-CWA believes it is important to stand in solidarity with the CPCS in their efforts to protect and expand their rights as workers and form a union. A rising tide of worker power lifts all of our boats, so we encourage members to vote YES on Question 2.

✅ YES on Question 4

In Massachusetts today, voters must register to vote 10 days prior to an election to be permitted to cast a ballot, and may register on the spot if they are in the early voting period. Question 4 is very simple: bring same-day voter registration to Massachusetts on Election Day. 

Same-day voter registration on Election Day is already in place in 20 other states in America. If Question 4 passes, then Massachusetts would join them, allowing voters to register on Election Day at their polling place by providing an election official with proof of residency then submitting a written oath testifying that they are a citizen of the United States, at least 18 years old, not prohibited from voting, and not voting in the election in a different location. UVW-CWA believes that greater access to the right to vote benefits everyone, and so encourages members to vote YES on Question 4.

Washington Measures

❌ NO on Initiative 645

In March of 2026, the Washington State Legislature passed Senate Bill 6346. Better known as the millionaires tax, the bill is set to go into effect in 2028, and impose a 9.9% tax on household income above $1 million adjusted gross income a year.

Initiative 645, introduced by hedge fund manager Brian Heywood, would kill the millionaire tax, as well as banning the ability for the state legislature to ever pass such measures in the future. 

The effects of this would cost the people of Washington roughly $3.5 billion a year in lost revenue, which has been earmarked to go toward free K-12 school meals, affordable childcare subsidies, pre-K programs for low and moderate-income families, an expansion of the Working Families Tax Credit, sales tax exemptions for Washingtonians on essential everyday items like diapers and over-the-counter medications, and more.

For obvious reasons, the initiative is strongly opposed by various labor unions including the Washington Federation of State Employees and the SEIU. UVW-CWA encourages members to vote NO on Initiative 645.