Proposition 4 | Proposition 39 | Proposition 41 | Proposition 42 | Proposition 44

Proposition 4

Summary: Proposition 4 would allow state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs for candidates running for office. These programs would reduce economic barriers to political participation and expand opportunities for women and other candidates to serve in public offices.

A “yes” vote would:

• Repeal California’s prohibition on state and local governments offering public funding for candidate campaigns.
• Allow state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs.
• Permit state and local governments to set eligibility requirements, spending limits, and other rules for participating candidates.
• Prohibit public financing programs from using funds earmarked for education, transportation, or public safety.

AAUW of California and AAUW recommend voting YES on Prop 4.

By creating opportunities for candidates who do not have substantial financial resources, public campaign financing could help broaden women’s representation and participation in public leadership.

---

Proposition 39

Summary: Proposition 39 would add new burdensome ID requirements for voting in person and by mail. Voters casting their ballots in person would be required to present government ID every time they vote. Mail-in voters would have to write the last four digits of a government-issued ID number on their ballot return envelope. If the numbers are missing or do not match their voter registration, their ballot would not count.

A “NO” vote would:

• Maintain current voter verification rules. Voters would continue to verify their identity through their signature on in-person voting records or mail-in ballot envelopes.
• Reject new voter ID requirements. Voters would not have to present government-issued identification every time they vote in person.
• Reject new citizenship verification requirements. State and local election officials would not be required to check voter registration records against government data to verify citizenship.
• Avoid additional implementation costs. State and local governments would not incur the estimated additional costs of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

AAUW of California and AAUW recommend voting NO on Prop. 39.

Protect voting access and ensure all eligible Californians have their voices heard.

---

Proposition 41

Summary: Proposition 41 would require audits of programs funded by new state special taxes and restrict the state’s ability to exempt new tax revenue from an existing voter-approved spending limit. Prop. 41 could also prevent Prop. 40, a separate measure proposing a one-time tax on billionaires to fund health care and other programs, from taking effect if both measures pass.

A “NO” vote would:

• Maintain existing state spending-limit rules and preserve flexibility to fund public services. California’s current requirements for how much the state can spend would remain unchanged.
• Reject new requirements for the California State Auditor to conduct pre-election and recurring audits for programs funded by certain new state taxes. The State Auditor would continue auditing government programs under existing law.
• Keep options open for future tax proposals. California could continue considering new special taxes without additional audit requirements and spending-limit restrictions.
• Avoid invalidating Prop. 40, the proposed billionaire wealth tax, if both measures pass.

AAUW of California and AAUW recommend voting NO on Proposition 41.

The measure’s new audit requirements and spending restrictions would affect the state’s ability to fund essential services, including health care and programs that support women and families.

---

Proposition 42

Summary: Proposition 42 would amend the California state constitution to prohibit new state taxes on personal property, including financial assets, retirement accounts, investment accounts, and business interests. It would also restrict certain taxes that apply retroactively to past activities. The restrictions would apply to taxes enacted or taking effect on or after January 1, 2026.

A “NO” vote would:

• Maintain the state’s ability to impose certain retroactive taxes and create new taxes on financial assets and other personal property, including investments, retirement accounts, and business interests.
• Retain state tax options that could help fund public services, including health care, though actual revenue would depend on which taxes are proposed and enacted.
• Reject a proposed constitutional restriction that could prevent Prop. 40’s one-time billionaire wealth tax from taking effect if both measures pass.

AAUW of California and AAUW recommend voting NO on Prop. 42.

Preserve the state’s ability to fund health care and other essential public services that support women’s economic security and equal opportunity.

---

Proposition 44

Summary: Proposition 44 would require certain nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their annual revenue on health care services and activities related to their charitable mission. Clinics that do not meet this requirement would face financial penalties.

A “NO” vote would:

• Reject a mandatory 90% spending rule and financial penalties that could force clinics serving low-income, uninsured, and medically underserved Californians to reduce services or close.
• Maintain flexibility in spending. Clinics could continue allocating funds toward administrative staff, technology, facilities, management, and other operating expenses under existing rules.
• Keep existing oversight requirements. Clinics would continue following existing state and federal reporting and regulatory requirements.
• Avoid new enforcement costs associated with implementing Prop. 44, estimated to be tens of millions of dollars annually.

AAUW of California and AAUW recommend voting NO on Prop. 44.

Protect access to health care and ensure community clinics can continue serving their patients. These clinics provide essential care, including primary care, mental health services, reproductive and prenatal care, and other services for people who may have difficulty accessing health care elsewhere.

---

Proposition NN | Amendment 81 | Amendment 84 | Amendment 87 | Proposition 133 | Proposition 134 | Proposition 135 | Proposition 136

Proposition NN

Summary: Prop. NN seeks to strengthen funding for K–12 and early education, health care, and child care. The measure would help address Colorado’s long-term funding needs without raising taxes.

A “yes” vote would:

• Allow the state to retain more of the revenues already received.
• Direct retained revenue to K–12 education and programs that support children, increasing state investment in public education by 2% annually for the next 10 years.
• Support teachers and students by funding teacher pay and retention, smaller class sizes, and expanded access to career and technical education.
• Require annual, independent public audits showing how the new investments are spent.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting YES on Prop. NN.

Support for Proposition NN aligns with AAUW’s longstanding commitment to educational equity and economic security. Adequate funding for public education helps create opportunities for students to succeed, while access to affordable child care and early education helps women and families balance work and caregiving responsibilities.

---

Amendment 81

Summary: Amendment 81 would require Colorado law enforcement to report individuals to federal immigration authorities before verifying a person’s citizenship status.

A “no” vote would:

• Reject new mandatory citizenship status checks and requirements to report to the U.S Department of Homeland Security.
• Maintain protections for immigrant communities. Police and other officials would continue to operate under existing state law, which allows certain cooperation with federal authorities in criminal matters but limits involvement in civil immigration enforcement.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting NO on Amendment 81.

This amendment could make Coloradans, especially immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other crimes, afraid to report abuse or ask for help. Everyone deserves fair treatment under the law and the ability to seek help and protection without fear.

---

Amendment 84

Summary: Amendment 84 would add a new step to Colorado’s mail voting process and could make it harder for some eligible voters to have their votes counted. The measure would require voters to include the last four digits of their Social Security number, Colorado driver’s license number, or state ID number on their mail ballot envelope. If the information is missing or does not match state records, voters would have to fix the problem within a limited time to make sure their ballot counts.

A “no” vote would:

• Keep mail voting accessible and protect voters’ privacy by rejecting new burdensome identification requirements.
• Avoid the risk of ballots being rejected over number errors. Eligible voters’ mail ballots would not be checked against state records or thrown out if a voter makes a mistake.
• Maintain Colorado’s current mail-ballot verification system. Election officials would continue verifying voters’ identities by comparing signatures on ballot envelopes with signatures on file.
• Avoid additional election administration costs associated with implementing new mail-in ballot requirements.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting NO on Amendment 84.

AAUW believes every eligible voter should be able to cast their vote and make their voice heard. Additional identification requirements would create barriers for voters who lack access to the required ID numbers or have difficulty correcting errors before the deadline. This could especially affect older women, women with disabilities, and women experiencing financial hardship.

---

Amendment 87

Summary: Colorado Amendment 87, also known as the Income Tax Fairness Act, would create a graduated income tax system in which people with lower incomes pay lower rates and people with higher incomes pay higher rates. The measure would direct the additional tax revenue toward K–12 public schools, health care, and early childhood care and education programs.

A “yes” vote would:

• Replace Colorado’s current flat state income tax with a graduated income tax system.
• Direct additional tax revenue to K–12 public education, health care, and early childhood care and education.
• Allow the state to keep and spend the additional revenue without being subject to TABOR’s existing revenue limit.
• Require annual audited reporting on the additional revenue collected and how it is spent.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting YES on Amendment 87.

AAUW of Colorado supports policies that expand educational opportunity, strengthen economic security, and advance equity for women and girls. Dedicated funding for education, health care, and early childhood programs can support women and families at different stages of life.

Proposition 133

Summary: Proposition 133 would expand the definition of child sex trafficking and mandate life imprisonment without parole for every person convicted under the law. Mandatory sentencing denies judges the ability to consider the circumstances of individual cases, including cases involving survivors who have been coerced into participating in trafficking.

A “no” vote would:

• Keep Colorado’s current legal definition and criminal penalties for child sex trafficking. Courts would retain the existing sentencing range rather than be required to sentence every person convicted under the law to life without parole.
• Maintain existing state laws against sexual exploitation of minors. Other existing sex-crime and trafficking laws would remain in effect, including laws that can apply to people who purchase sexual activity involving minors.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting NO on Proposition 133.

The measure’s proposed mandatory life sentence could prevent trafficking survivors from coming forward if they were coerced into criminal activity by their abusers. A “no” vote on Prop. 133 lets judges weigh the facts of each case so that survivors can receive the safety and support they deserve.

---

Proposition 134

Summary: Proposition 134 would require all school-based athletic teams and sports, from kindergarten through college, to be designated as male, female, or coeducational based on a proposed definition of biological sex. The measure would also prohibit government entities and athletic associations from investigating or penalizing schools for maintaining separate male and female teams and authorize the Colorado education commissioner to enforce the requirements for K–12 school districts.

A “no” vote would:

• Reject a new statewide mandate to limit students’ participation in school sports according to the measure’s proposed definition of biological sex.
• Protect all students against potentially invasive processes, which the measure leaves undefined, to verify their sex.
• Keep current policies in place that allow individual schools, school districts, and athletic associations to set their own eligibility rules under applicable state and federal law.
• Maintain existing participation options for transgender students. All students could continue to play sports under the eligibility policies that apply to their school or athletic association.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting NO on Proposition 134.

Every student deserves the opportunity to learn and play free from discrimination.

---

Proposition 135

Summary: Proposition 135 would place new restrictions on access to gender-affirming surgeries for minors. The measure would also prohibit the use of state or federal funds, Medicaid reimbursement, and health insurance coverage to pay for these procedures.

A “no” vote would:

• Protect access to gender-affirming health care for minors. Certain surgeries would remain legal under existing Colorado law, subject to applicable medical requirements and consent rules.
• Keep existing medical regulations in place. Healthcare providers would continue to follow current state laws and applicable medical standards.
• Maintain insurance coverage options. Public and private health insurance programs, including Medicaid, could continue covering eligible procedures under existing rules.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting NO on Proposition 135.

Families and qualified health care professionals, not politicians, should make decisions about children’s health.

---

Proposition 136

Summary: Proposition 136 would cap Colorado’s state income tax rate at 4.4%, starting in 2027. This measure would limit the state’s ability to raise income tax rates in the future, even if more funding is needed for schools, health care, childcare, and other public services.

A “no” vote would:

• Maintain the current 4.4% income tax rate without adding a new statutory cap.
• Keep the option of changing income tax rates in the future. That leaves the door open for a graduated income tax, as proposed under Colorado Amendment 87, to lower rates for many taxpayers and raise them for people with higher incomes.

AAUW of Colorado and AAUW recommend voting NO on Proposition 136.

AAUW supports economic policies that promote fairness and expand opportunities for women and families. Colorado should preserve its ability to fund essential services and invest in opportunities that strengthen women’s economic security.

---

Amendment 3

Amendment 3

Summary: Florida Amendment 3, also known as the Homestead Tax Exemptions, Property Assessments, and Spending Restrictions Amendment, would increase the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes and limit the ways that local governments can use property tax revenue to serve their communities.

A “no” vote would:

• Reject an increase of the homestead exemption for non-school property taxes to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, which would reduce local government revenue if enacted.
• Reject new limits on how municipalities can spend property taxes, requiring them to spend them on public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resource projects and flood control, local bonds, employee retirement benefits, and government operations.

AAUW of Florida and AAUW recommend voting NO on Amendment 3.

For over 140 years, AAUW has championed equitable access to education, including the resources students need to succeed. Under Amendment 3, services that are essential to meeting students’ basic needs — including after-school programs, nutrition programs, and food banks — would experience cuts. AAUW recommends voting NO on Florida Amendment 3 to ensure students can reach their full potential.

---

Alter Investment and Distribution Policies for Permanent School Fund Amendment

Alter Investment and Distribution Policies for Permanent School Fund Amendment

Summary: The Minnesota Alter Investment and Distribution Policies for Permanent School Fund Amendment would amend the Minnesota state constitution to change how the Minnesota Permanent School Fund is managed and distributed.

A “yes” vote would:

• Amend the Minnesota state constitution to permit 4.5% of the Permanent School Fund’s value to be distributed to school districts across Minnesota every year. Currently, only the interest and dividends from the fund can be distributed.

AAUW of Minnesota and AAUW recommend voting YES on the Alter Investment and Distribution Policies for Permanent School Fund Amendment.

For over 140 years, AAUW has advanced equitable access to high-quality education for all students. The Alter Investment and Distribution Policies for Permanent School Fund Amendment would increase the amount of support the Fund provides to today’s students, while ensuring that the fund will continue to be a resource for the students of tomorrow. Increased funding for public schools means more resources for students, teachers, and families. Therefore, AAUW recommends voting YES on the Minnesota Alter Investment and Distribution Policies for Permanent School Fund Amendment.

---

Question 1 | Question 2 | Question 3

Question 1

Summary: Virginia Question 1, also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, would amend the Virginia state constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom.

A “yes” vote would:

• Enshrine a right to reproductive freedom in the Virginia state constitution.
• Define reproductive freedom as “the ability to make and carry out decisions relating to one’s own prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, abortion care, miscarriage management, and fertility care.”
• Protect patients and providers from being punished for those decisions.
• Reserve the right of the state to regulate third-trimester abortion care, except in cases where the fetus is deemed nonviable or when the pregnancy threatens the life, or the physical or mental health, of the mother.

AAUW of Virginia and AAUW recommend voting YES on Question 1.

AAUW believes that women and all people deserve the right to make personal decisions about their own reproductive care and views reproductive freedom as an essential component of gender equity. AAUW’s member-affirmed Public Policy Principles & Priorities name our commitment to “ensuring affordable access to contraception and abortion care for all women regardless of location.” Question 1 would affirm and codify this right for Virginians; therefore, AAUW recommends voting YES.

---

Question 2

Summary: Virginia Question 2, also known as the Marriage Equality Amendment or Remove Constitutional Same-Sex Marriage Ban Amendment, would amend the Virginia state constitution to protect marriage rights based on sex, gender, and race.

A “yes” vote would:

• Remove the provision in the Virginia state constitution defining marriage as being between “one man and one woman.”
• Add a provision to the state constitution establishing marriage as a “vital personal right” essential to the “pursuit of happiness.”
• Prohibit the state from denying two consenting adults a marriage license based on their sex, gender, or race.

AAUW of Virginia and AAUW recommend voting YES on Question 2.

AAUW advocates “vigorous enforcement of and full access to civil and constitutional rights” for all. Although same-sex marriage has been legal in Virginia since 2014, marriage equality remains vulnerable in the state so long as the current constitutional definition of marriage continues to stand. Question 2 would close this gap in protection for marriage equality in Virginia, and as such AAUW recommends voting YES.

---

Question 3

Summary: Virginia Question 3, also known as the Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Upon Release Amendment, would amend the Virginia state constitution to establish a fundamental right to vote for citizens who have established residency in the state. The measure would also automatically restore voting rights to people convicted of a felony once they are released from incarceration.

A “yes” vote would:

• Limit felony offenders’ loss of voting rights to the duration of their incarceration, automatically restoring their voting rights upon release.
• Change the standards for considering a person lacking the mental capacity to vote, allowing only individuals whom a state court deems incapable of understanding voting to be prohibited from voting.

AAUW of Virginia and AAUW recommend voting YES on Question 3.

AAUW strongly supports expanding voting rights and ensuring all Americans have the same access and right to vote. In January 2026, a federal judge restored voting rights to individuals formerly incarcerated for all but eleven specific felonies in Virginia, re-enfranchising hundreds of thousands of Virginians. Question 3 would further protect these individuals’ voting rights; as such, AAUW recommends voting YES.