No on 38 Challenges Constitutionality of $8.4B Bond Measure
Key Takeaway: No on 38 asks Attorney General Bonta to investigate whether the $8.4B bond’s criteria unconstitutionally steer half the money to a single UCLA institute.
The campaign opposing California’s Proposition 38 is challenging the constitutionality of the $8.4 billion immunology research bond on the November 3 ballot, sending a letter to Attorney General Rob Bonta asking him to investigate, [The Center Square](https://www.ttownmedia.com/news/state/group-challenges-constitutionality-of-8-4b-proposition/article_bcadff19-9510-5002-8910-71114229b62b.html) reported.
The challenge
The proposition would use all $8.4 billion to pay for immunology research, backed by general obligation bonds paid for by California taxpayers. Opponents say the eligibility criteria are so specific that only one or two institutions can qualify: recipients must be affiliated with the University of California, have at least 35,000 inpatient visits at on-campus hospitals, and run an immunology and immunotherapy graduate programme.
“They created these criteria to be eligible to compete, and that eligibility is predicated almost entirely on UCLA’s numbers,” Robert Kaplan, co-chair of the No on Prop. 38 campaign, told [The Center Square](https://www.ttownmedia.com/news/state/group-challenges-constitutionality-of-8-4b-proposition/article_bcadff19-9510-5002-8910-71114229b62b.html). “So you’d have to have more than 3.5 million outpatient visits per year, and UCLA has a little bit more than that. UCSF [University of California, San Francisco] is 3.4 [million].” The group has sent a letter to Attorney General Rob Bonta asking him to look into the measure’s constitutionality.
The numbers behind the claim
Independent analysis backs the narrow-eligibility reading. [CityHallPass](https://cityhallpass.com/election-2026/measures/prop-38), citing CalMatters’ analysis of UC’s latest audit, found only UCLA’s health system exceeds 3.5 million outpatient visits a year, with 4.1 million in 2025 against UC San Francisco’s 3.4 million, meaning only a UCLA-affiliated institute fits the criteria.
The [Legislative Analyst’s Office](https://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=38&year=2026&utm_source=chatgpt.com) estimates the bond would cost $500-600 million a year for about 20 years, roughly 0.25% of the General Fund. The scientific establishment is split too: [STAT](https://www.statnews.com/2026/10/19/california-prop-38-immunology-research-bond-oddly-specific-earmark/) reported on October 19 that the American Association of Immunologists’ policy committee recommended rescinding its endorsement after learning the measure would likely yield a windfall for a research centre co-founded by its leading backer, billionaire philanthropist Gary Michelson, though the council voted in August to keep it.
“Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it.” The League of Women Voters of California said, via [Westside Story Newspaper](https://westsidestorynewspaper.com/on-your-november-ballot-prop-38-would-allocate-8-4-billion-to-immunology-and-immunotherapy-funding/). Supporters counter that the measure creates a statewide network combining competitive grants with a world-class institute. A yes vote on November 3 authorises the bonds; a no vote rejects them.
Key Story Metrics
| Figure | Reported Status |
|---|---|
| Total bond | $8.4B (LAO, October 2026) |
| To one institute (opponents’ claim) | ~$4.2B (No on 38, October 2026) |
| Annual debt payments | $500-600M x ~20 yrs (LAO, October 2026) |
| Outpatient-visit threshold | 3.5M/year (Measure text) |
| UCLA health system | 4.1M (2025) (UC audit via CalMatters) |
| UCSF | 3.4M (2025) (UC audit via CalMatters) |
| AAI members | 7,700+ (STAT, October 19, 2026) |
✓ Verified
• No on Prop. 38 sent a letter to Attorney General Rob Bonta asking him to investigate the measure’s constitutionality.
• Prop 38 is on California’s November 3 ballot; it would authorise $8.4B in general obligation bonds for immunology research.
• Eligibility: UC affiliation, 35,000+ inpatient visits at on-campus hospitals, immunology graduate programme.
• Robert Kaplan (No on 38 co-chair): criteria ‘predicated almost entirely on UCLA’s numbers’.
• CalMatters/UC audit: only UCLA exceeds 3.5M outpatient visits/year (4.1M in 2025; UCSF 3.4M).
• LAO: $500-600M/year for about 20 years, ~0.25% of the General Fund.
• STAT (Oct 19): American Association of Immunologists divided; council voted in August to keep endorsement.
• League of Women Voters of California opposes the measure.
⚠ Still needs confirmation
• The constitutional claim is the opponents’ argument, not a court ruling.
• The $4.2 billion-to-one-institute figure is the opponents’ characterisation; supporters describe a statewide network with competitive grants.
• The letter to Attorney General Bonta is a request for investigation, not a lawsuit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Proposition 38?
A California ballot measure on the November 3 election authorising $8.4 billion in bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research.
Why do opponents call it unconstitutional?
They argue the eligibility criteria are written so narrowly that only a UCLA-affiliated institute can qualify, directing about $4.2 billion to one institution.
What would it cost taxpayers?
The Legislative Analyst estimates $500-600 million a year for about 20 years.
What happens on a yes or no vote?
A yes vote authorises the $8.4 billion in bonds; a no vote rejects the funding.
Editor’s note: The constitutional claim is the opponents’ argument, not a court ruling; the letter to the Attorney General is a request for investigation.
