2026 Midterms: The Case for Down-Ballot Research and Planning
The 2026 midterm elections could shape funding opportunities, tax policies, and real estate decisions for nonprofit organizations.
Introduction
Election years produce a peculiar form of paralysis. Everyone knows something will change. No one knows exactly what. Plans wait, assumptions harden, and a surprising number of otherwise thoughtful organizations quietly decide that hope is a planning tool. It’s not.
For nonprofit and institutional leaders contemplating a capital project, the 2026 midterms offer a useful moment to look past the headline races. Setting the candidates aside, federal, state, and local measures “down-ballot” can alter funding, approvals, tax policy, infrastructure, and the broader environment in which capital projects emerge.
Two Outcomes. Many Consequences.
Across the regions we serve, voters will consider various measures that touch housing, schools, cultural facilities, parks, resilience, and public infrastructure.
For example, in California, Prop 1 would provide over $10B to the development of affordable housing. In Florida, Amendment 3 could alter the base of real estate tax revenue that supports institutions and nonprofits throughout the State. These contrasting measures are the tip of the iceberg. Several examples are shared at the conclusion of this article.
In binary terms, it’s easy to ask: what happens if a new source of public support appears? What happens if an assumed source disappears? It’s harder to ask what happens if the measure succeeds, but its rules, timing, or matching requirements make the opportunity less useful than its original promise? What happens if a measure succeeds at one level of government but is offset by an unrelated measure passed at another level of government?
Plan First. Deliver Later.
In the face of uncertainty, capital planning works best when difficult questions arrive early, and multiple answers are considered concurrently. Which assumptions depend on public approval? Which repairs cannot wait? Which improvements can be phased? Could adaptive reuse, a different property, or a partnership solve the same problem with less risk? These plan-oriented questions test feasibility and financing in multiple scenarios.
If a useful election outcome emerges, all that advanced preparation boosts speed. A credible scope and a validated financial model can accelerate a project. Now the work moves from planning to delivery, allowing organizations to align scope with available funding, assemble design and construction teams, and start tracking cost, cash flow, and progress.
If a ballot outcome fails to deliver the desired level of support, the same preparation enables a pivot. Moving quickly is valuable, but knowing when to redirect is valuable too.
Sometimes, Election Outcomes Amplify the Need to Sustain.
Existing facilities don’t face the same election pressures as new construction. Their ongoing financial needs persist regardless of ballot box outcomes. But if a down-ballot issue unexpectedly works against an organization, especially an organization preparing for a new facility elsewhere, the urgency to sustain an existing asset suddenly rises. Understandably, most institutions and nonprofits focus on their mission rather than optimizing the financial performance of their existing real estate. But this creates blind spots. Is a building helping or hurting? Is its financial performance diverting dollars away from programming?
On the surface, if fiscal performance is suddenly elevated, it’s time to ensure existing facilities are maximizing their rent-collecting potential and paying reasonable rates for operating expenses such as utilities and insurance. But it’s also time to consider whether facilities can achieve economies of scale through common service contracts, obtain better financing than is currently available, or reallocate reserves to cover urgent needs.
Let’s Talk.
A conversation today can clarify what to watch, what to test, and what comes next. When the ballots are counted, the strongest capital plans will not be the ones that guessed correctly. The strongest will be led by those who take the time to think clearly, deliver confidently, and sustain what they create.
State Ballot Measures to Watch
In the regions we serve, the following measures offer a starting point for organizations assessing funding and real estate decisions. Funding proposals sit alongside tax and regulatory changes whose implications may result in mixed outcomes.
- California Proposition 1 – $11.25 billion housing affordability bond. Supports multifamily, supportive, veterans’, and other housing programs, including preservation of existing affordable housing.
- California Proposition 45 – Environmental review. Changes the review and court-challenge procedures for qualifying projects, including housing, healthcare, water, and transportation.
- Rhode Island Question 2 – $120 million housing bond. Supports housing production, rehabilitation, and affordable homeownership, potentially strengthening funding options for qualifying housing developers.
- Rhode Island Question 4 – $50 million cultural economy bond. Includes $5 million for preservation grants benefiting eligible nonprofit historic sites, museums, and cultural facilities; $45 million is designated for a State History Center.
- Rhode Island Question 5 – $55 million green economy bond. Includes $3 million for brownfield remediation matching grants available to eligible nonprofit entities, alongside public environmental and recreation investments.
- Massachusetts Question 6 – Nature for All Fund. Directs specified tax revenues, subject to legislative appropriation, toward conservation and outdoor recreation. Public charities involved in natural resource conservation could receive funding.
- Massachusetts Question 7 – Smaller residential lots. Allows qualifying single-family homes on residentially zoned lots of at least 5,000 square feet, subject to frontage, utility, and local requirements. Relevant to eligible nonprofit infill housing.
- Florida Amendment 3 – Property taxes. Increases non-school homestead exemptions, reduces the annual non-homestead assessment-growth cap from 10% to 5%, and changes local spending rules. It does not expand charitable exemptions; fully exempt facilities should not assume additional savings. Its passage, however, threatens local revenue streams that have historically supported nonprofits and institutions.
Local Ballot Measures to Watch
A local measure may be closer to a project’s funding needs than a statewide initiative. These city and county measures warrant attention, with different implications for private nonprofit facilities and public assets.
- Baltimore City Question A – $22 million affordable housing loan. Authorizes borrowing for housing acquisition, rehabilitation, construction, and related activities, including the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
- Baltimore City Question C – $50 million community and economic development loan. Permits property and building improvements and loans or grants supporting neighborhood revitalization, economic inclusion, and cultural life.
- Baltimore City Question D – $148 million public infrastructure loan. Supports city-owned or controlled infrastructure, libraries, parks, and facilities. Most relevant to public assets and nonprofit partnerships involving those assets.
- Providence Local Question 6 – $25 million Housing Trust Fund bond. Finances affordable multifamily housing, with participating projects required to maintain affordability for at least 30 years.
- Tampa and Hillsborough County Referendum 3 – School capital funding. Renews the half-cent school sales surtax for ten years. Supports school repairs and improvements.
- Saint Petersburg storm resilience referendum – Up to $600 million in bonds. Supports stormwater, wastewater, and drinking-water infrastructure. Benefits to nonprofit sites depend on project locations and delivery schedules.
- San Francisco Proposition C – Housing Trust Fund. Expands housing programs, revises contributions, and extends the fund through 2058. Growth toward $125 million annually is projected over time, with fiscal safeguards allowing freezes or reductions.
- San Francisco Proposition I – Housing revenue dedication. Dedicates half of transfer-tax revenues from certain transactions exceeding $10 million to affordable housing and assistance, shifting existing general revenues rather than creating an unrestricted nonprofit grant pool.
Disclaimer: These examples are a sampling only and are shared without representation as to their efficacy or value.
Ready to take the next step? We’d love to chat with you!
