Key facts
- Prop 45 would have capped full environmental impact reports at 365 business days and court challenges at 270 days.
- Covered projects included housing, water, energy, schools, health facilities and transportation.
- The Legislative Analyst's Office said the measure could cost local governments up to $100 million a year at first.
- A Chamber-commissioned analysis projected $1.5 billion in savings and added revenue over 10 years.
- The California Chamber of Commerce sponsored the measure; the California Democratic Party and Sierra Club California opposed it.
- A study by Hernandez and other researchers reviewed 498 CEQA appellate decisions from 2013 through 2023; agencies prevailed in 75%.
California voters rejected Proposition 45, a ballot measure that would have consolidated legislative fixes to the California Environmental Quality Act and set deadlines on environmental review for housing and other projects. The Associated Press called the race over the weekend of November 7-8, 2026, though the state is still counting votes. Unofficial returns showed about 56% of voters opposed and 44% in favor, a spread the report described as too large to overcome with the remaining votes.
The measure failed decisively across populous coastal counties, where housing affordability is a pressing concern. Voters in Santa Cruz, Marin and Sonoma counties rejected it by the widest margins. Opponents tied the measure to data center development, an argument the report described as influential in midterm races nationwide.
"Californians have sent a clear message to corporate developers, utilities and data center builders that they will not stand for a broad assault at the ballot box on state law protecting our air, water and natural resources," the Vote No on Prop 45 campaign said in a statement. Proponents called that an inaccurate scare tactic. "The opposition relentlessly lied, falsely claiming that Prop 45 covered data centers when non-partisan experts agreed it did not," Jennifer Hernandez, who leads Holland & Knight's West Coast land-use and environmental group, told HousingWire TBD.
Opponents also disputed that the measure would help create affordable housing, citing housing groups that urged a no vote or declined to endorse. Abundant Housing LA and California YIMBY did not endorse the measure. Opponents included the California Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters, the American Lung Association, Sierra Club California and the California Federation of Labor Unions. The California Chamber of Commerce sponsored the measure, with backing from home-builder groups and some affordable housing advocates.
Had it passed, the measure would have capped full environmental impact reports at 365 business days and court challenges at 270 days. Covered "essential" projects included housing, water, energy, schools, health facilities and transportation, and applicants could have chosen the new procedures or the existing ones. The Legislative Analyst's Office said the measure could cost local governments up to $100 million a year at first, with long-term financial effects unclear. A Chamber-commissioned analysis projected $1.5 billion in savings and added revenue over 10 years.
Prop 45 followed a run of legislative changes limiting CEQA reviews of housing proposals. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 in 2025, exempting qualifying infill housing from CEQA and narrowing review for some projects falling short of an exemption. A newer round of bills signed this fall targets more permitting delays and shields some specific developments from further CEQA challenges, including a mixed-use development in San Diego.
Supporters said predictable timelines would help California build homes and the infrastructure that serves them, and argued the measure could cut delays by two to 10 years. Opponents said the 2025 reforms already addressed much of CEQA's housing problem, and that Prop 45 would cap public-comment periods, narrow tribal consultation and limit judicial review. Critics said "essential" was defined so broadly that it could fast-track freeways, power plants and pipelines. The report said the fight to streamline CEQA may now shift back to the Legislature and a new governor.