Introduction

Affordability remains a major concern for California voters heading into the midterm elections this November. In a recent survey of California adult residents, almost half (44%) identify the cost of living, the economy, and inflation as the most important state issues going into the 2026 elections.¹ Roughly 6.7 million Californians are struggling to afford basic needs,² including housing, energy, food, and healthcare, amid persistently high costs.³ These affordability pressures can force households to make difficult choices about how to cover everyday expenses, including cutting back on basic needs, drawing on savings, taking on debt, or working additional hours. Beyond these immediate financial pressures, many households also worry about their ability to keep up with expenses in the months ahead. 

These financial pressures may be compounded for households that rely on public assistance as changes to major safety-net programs take effect. Under H.R. 1, changes to eligibility requirements and funding for programs such as Medi-Cal and CalFresh could affect access to healthcare and food assistance for some California households.⁴ For lower-income households, reductions in public assistance could add to existing financial pressures by increasing the amount families must spend out of pocket on healthcare and food.⁵ Latino households may be particularly vulnerable to these pressures; nearly a quarter (22%) of Latinos in California live in poverty,⁶ making up roughly half (51%) of the state’s total impoverished population.⁷ Research also shows rising basic expenses, such as gasoline, also disproportionately affect Latino families who often have fewer financial resources to absorb rising costs.⁸

Against this backdrop, we draw on survey data from registered California voters to examine how Latino registered voters are experiencing financial pressures and how their experiences compare with those of non-Latinos. The analysis considers respondents’ current financial circumstances, actions their households have taken in response to financial pressures, and concerns about their future finances. It also examines how respondents who report receiving Medi-Cal and CalFresh anticipate reacting to potential funding cuts in public programs.

Data and Approach

This analysis draws on polling data from registered California voters collected in May 2026 by the Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) at the University of California, Berkeley. The survey included 8,578 registered voters, of whom 2,115 were Latino (25%), and 6,463 were non-Latino (75%). Because the survey includes only registered voters, findings are representative of California’s registered voter population rather than all California residents. 

The analysis compares the experiences of Latino and non-Latino respondents, both overall and by household income. To ensure the findings are representative of the California registered voter population, survey weights are applied to all estimates, and Rao-Scott chi-square tests are used to determine whether differences between groups are statistically significant. This test accounts for survey weights and the survey’s complex sampling design. Sample sizes vary across questions because of item nonresponse and survey skip patterns. The survey questions examined in this analysis are provided in the appendix.

Key Findings

Key Finding 1: California Latino registered voters report greater financial strain than non-Latino registered voters.

Respondents were asked to describe their current personal financial situation as comfortable, adequate, stressed, or falling behind. Overall, Latino respondents were half as likely as non-Latino respondents to describe their financial situation as comfortable (22% vs. 44%; see Figure 1). At the same time, 23% of Latino respondents reported being stressed and struggling to pay for basic necessities, nearly twice the share of non-Latino respondents (12%). Latino respondents were also more likely to report falling behind and being unable to keep up with bills or afford basic necessities (9% vs. 5%). These differences were statistically significant.

Figure 1. Reported Comfort Level of Personal Financial Situation Among Registered Voters by Ethnicity

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference between Latino and non-Latino respondents (p < 0.05), based on Rao-Scott chi-square tests. 

Source: Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.”

Latino respondents were less likely than non-Latino respondents to report financial well-being within most income levels, even as concern declined among higher-income respondents (see Figure 2). Differences between Latino and non-Latino respondents also became more pronounced at higher income levels. Among those with household incomes of $40,000 to $99,999, 19% of Latino respondents reported being financially comfortable, compared with 28% of non-Latino respondents. Furthermore, among those with household incomes of $100,000 to $199,999, the corresponding shares were 37% and 55%, respectively, and among respondents with incomes higher than $200,000, the shares were 53% and 81%, respectively. Differences between Latino and non-Latino respondents were statistically significant within all household income groups except those earning less than $40,000 annually.

Figure 2. Reported Comfort Level of Personal Financial Situation Among Registered Voters by Ethnicity and Household Income

Notes: An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference between Latino and non-Latino respondents within the same household income group (p < 0.05), based on Rao-Scott chi-square tests.

Sources: Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.”

Key Finding 2: California Latino registered voters are more likely than non-Latino registered voters to report financial coping actions and hardship experiences.

Respondents were asked whether they or their household had implemented financial coping actions in the 2 months prior to taking the survey, including cutting back on groceries or food quality, using savings to cover everyday expenses, taking on additional debt, increasing their work hours, or falling behind on rent, mortgage payments, or utility bills.

Latino respondents were more likely than non-Latino respondents to report engaging in financial coping actions. For example, 40% of Latino respondents reported they cut back on groceries or food quality, compared with 28% of non-Latino respondents (see Table 1). Latino respondents were also twice as likely as non-Latino respondents to report they had fallen behind on rent, mortgage payments, or utility bills (18% vs. 9%) and were more likely to report taking on additional credit card debt or loans (31% vs. 21%). In contrast, 47% of non-Latino respondents reported none of the listed strategies, compared with 29% of Latino respondents. Differences between Latino and non-Latino respondents were statistically significant across all response options.

Table 1. Financial Coping Actions and Hardship Experiences Registered Voters Reported in the Past 2 Months by Ethnicity

Notes: Percentages exceed 100% because respondents could select multiple answers. An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference between Latino and non-Latino respondents for the marked response option (p < 0.05), based on Rao-Scott chi-square tests.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.”

Within all income groups, the most common financial coping actions reported among respondents were cutting back on groceries or food quality, using savings to cover everyday expenses, and taking on additional credit card debt or loans (see Table 2). This trend was observed for both Latino and non-Latino respondents. 

Within most income groups, Latino respondents were generally more likely than non-Latino respondents to report financial coping actions and experiencing financial hardship (see Table 2). However, differences between Latino and non-Latino respondents were most notable among respondents with incomes above $200,000. Latino respondents with household incomes greater than $200,000 were five percentage points more likely than their non-Latino counterparts to report cutting back on groceries (17% vs. 12%). Additionally, they were more than twice as likely as their non-Latino counterparts to report falling behind on rent, mortgage, and utility bills (8% vs. 2%) and taking on additional debt (26% vs. 12%). Despite reporting a high household income, Latino respondents were more likely to report engaging in financial coping strategies and experiencing financial hardship than non-Latino respondents in the same income group.

Table 2. Financial Coping Actions and Hardship Experiences Registered Voters Reported in the Past 2 Months by Ethnicity and Household Income

Notes: Percentages exceed 100% because respondents could select multiple answers. An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference between Latino and non-Latino respondents for the marked response option (p < 0.05), based on Rao-Scott chi-square tests.

Source: Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.”

Key Finding 3: Among California-registered voters in households reporting receipt of Medi-Cal or CalFresh, Latino respondents were more likely than non-Latino respondents to say they would buy lower-quality food if benefits were reduced.

Respondents were asked whether they, or anyone in their household, receives health insurance coverage through Medi-Cal or food assistance through CalFresh. More than one-third (38%) of Latino respondents reported that they or someone in their household receives Medi-Cal or CalFresh, compared with 21% of non-Latino respondents.⁹ This difference was statistically significant.

Respondents who reported that they or someone in their household received Medi-Cal or CalFresh were then asked how their household would respond if state budget cuts resulted in reduced benefits. Response options included buying less food, buying lower-quality food, delaying needed medical care, or delaying or not refilling needed prescriptions. These responses reflect anticipated household decisions in response to a hypothetical reduction in benefits and should not be interpreted as actual changes in household behavior.

Food-related strategies were among the most commonly anticipated responses. About 43% of Latino respondents and 40% of non-Latino respondents said their household would buy less food if benefits were reduced (see Table 3). The difference was somewhat larger and statistically significant for food quality: 38% of Latino respondents said they would buy lower-quality food, compared with 31% of non-Latino respondents.

Healthcare-related strategies were substantial and similar between the two groups. More than one-third (36%) of both Latino and non-Latino respondents said they would delay or hold off on needed medical care, while roughly one in five (20% and 21%, respectively) said they would delay or not refill needed prescriptions.

The results suggest that reduced Medi-Cal or CalFresh benefits could affect households’ ability to meet basic food and healthcare needs. While anticipated reductions in food quantity were similar between the two groups, Latino respondents were significantly more likely than non-Latino respondents to anticipate purchasing lower-quality food.

Table 3. Anticipated Household Responses to Potential Reductions in Medi-Cal or CalFresh Benefits Among Registered Voters by Ethnicity

Notes: Percentages exceed 100% because respondents could select multiple answers. An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference between Latino and non-Latino respondents for the marked response option (p < 0.05), based on Rao-Scott chi-square tests. Data presented in Table 3 only includes respondents who answered “yes” to “Do you or does anyone in your household receive health insurance coverage under the state’s Medi-Cal program for low-income or disabled persons or food assistance benefits under the state’s CalFresh program?”

Source: Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.”

Key Finding 4: Looking ahead, concerns about rising expenses are widespread but higher among California Latino registered voters than non-Latino registered voters.

Respondents were asked to rate how worried they were about their household finances on a scale from very worried to not at all worried. Financial concern was widespread among both Latino and non-Latino respondents; however, Latino respondents were more likely to report being very or somewhat worried—76% compared with 61% of non-Latino respondents (see Figure 3). Latino respondents were also less likely than non-Latino respondents to report they were not very worried or not worried at all (19% vs. 36%). These differences were statistically significant.

Figure 3. Concerns Among Registered Voters About Their Household’s Ability to Keep Up with Rising Expenses by Ethnicity

Notes: An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference between Latino and non-Latino respondents (p < 0.05), based on Rao-Scott chi-square tests.

Sources: Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.”

Latino respondents were more likely than non-Latino respondents to report high levels of financial concern within all income groups, even as financial concern generally declined among higher-income respondents. For example, Latino respondents were more likely than non-Latino respondents to report being very or somewhat worried about their household’s ability to keep up with rising expenses within all income levels (see Figure 4). Likewise, Latino respondents were less likely to report they were not very worried or not at all worried than their non-Latino counterparts in every income group. Differences between Latino and non-Latino respondents were statistically significant within all income levels.

Figure 4. Concerns Among Registered Voters about their Household’s Ability to Keep Up with Rising Expenses by Ethnicity and Household Income

Notes: An asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference between Latino and non-Latino respondents within the same household income group (p < 0.05), based on Rao-Scott chi-square tests.

Sources: Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.”

Conclusion

Affordability is a widespread concern among California registered voters, but the findings show that financial pressures are not experienced equally. Latino respondents reported greater financial strain than non-Latino respondents across several measures, including being less likely to feel financially comfortable and more likely to cut back on food, fall behind on bills, or take on additional debt. They also expressed greater concern about their household finances.

These challenges are particularly important in the context of potential changes to safety-net programs. Latino respondents were more likely than non-Latino respondents to report that they or someone in their household received Medi-Cal or CalFresh. Among households receiving these benefits, substantial shares of both Latino and non-Latino respondents anticipated that reductions in benefits could affect their ability to meet basic food and healthcare needs.

Overall, the findings show that affordability extends beyond rising prices alone. For many households, financial pressures may shape everyday decisions about food, bills, debt, and healthcare. As policymakers consider changes that could affect the cost of living or access to public benefits, understanding how these pressures are experienced across different communities will be important for assessing their potential impacts on California households.

Appendix

Question Wording

1. 1. 1. Which of the following best describes your current personal financial situation?
         1. Comfortable, with money left over to save and afford non-essential things
         2. Adequate, able to pay for basic necessities but not much more
         3. Stressed, struggling to pay for basic necessities
         4. Falling behind, can’t keep up with bills, or afford basic necessities
         5. No opinion
      2. In the past 2 months, have you or your household had to do any of the following? Please select as many as apply.
         1. Cut back on groceries or food quality
         2. Fallen behind on rent, mortgage payments, or utility bills
         3. Used savings to cover everyday expenses
         4. Taken on additional credit card debt or loans
         5. Taken a second job or increased work hours for more overtime pay
         6. None of the above
      3. Do you or does anyone in your household receive health insurance coverage under the state’s Medi-Cal program for low-income or disabled persons, or food assistance benefits under the state’s CalFresh program?
         
         1. Yes
         2. No
         3. Not Sure
      4. (Only for respondents who answered “Yes” on 3a) Because of scheduled cuts to the state budget, Medi-Cal and CalFresh recipients will likely see their benefits reduced later this year. If this happens, which of the following things would you and your household most likely do in response? Please select as many as apply.
         1. Buy less food
         2. Buy lower-quality food
         3. Delay or hold off on getting needed medical care
         4. Delay or choose not to refill needed prescriptions
         5. None of the above
         6. Don’t know
      4. How worried are you about your or your household’s ability to keep up with growing expenses over the next several months?
         1. Very worried
         2. Somewhat worried
         3. Not very worried
         4. Not at all worried
         5. No opinion

End Notes

¹ Mark Baldassare, Dean Bonner, Lauren Mora, and Deja Thomas, PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, May 27, 2026), available online.

² Sarah Bohn, Caroline Danielson, Sara Kimberlin, Patricia Malagon, Taisiya Tworek, and Christopher Wimer, Poverty in California (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, July 2026), available online.

³ Tess Thorman and Sean Cremin, “Five Fast Facts on the Cost of Living in California,” PPIC Blog (blog), May 18, 2025, available online; California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, Paying the Price: Californians Struggle with the High Cost of Health Care (Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and California Pan-Ethnic Health NetworkcitizensLatinos, February 17, 2026), available online.

⁴ Center for Law and Social Policy, One Year into H.R. 1: Funding for Health Care and Nutrition Programs Slashed While Immigration Enforcement Balloons, Harming Millions (Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and Social Policy, July 2, 2026), available online.

⁵ Linda Giannarelli, Sarah Minton, and Laura Wheaton, with Ilham Dehry, Paul Johnson, Joyce Morton, and Kevin Werner, House Reconciliation Bill Will Hit Lowest-Income Families the Hardest: A Summary of Preliminary Research Findings (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, June 13, 2025), available online.

⁶ Sarah Bohn, Caroline Danielson, Sara Kimberlin, Patricia Malagon, Taisiya Tworek, and Christopher Wimer, Poverty in California (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, July 2026), available online.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Chhandara Pech et al., Gasoline Costs and Affordability Pressures in California: Impacts on Latino Households (Los Angeles: UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Institute and UCLA Center for Neighborhood Knowledge, April 23, 2026), available online.

⁹ Authors’ analysis of Berkeley IGS Poll, “Tabulations from a May 2026 Poll of California Registered Voters.” Receipt of Medi-Cal coverage and CalFresh is estimated using survey responses and therefore differs from administrative enrollment counts.

Acknowledgments

This brief was made possible with the generous support of the James Irvine Foundation. The authors thank Drs. Rodrigo Dominguez-Villegas and Cristina Mora for providing valuable and insightful feedback.

The UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute acknowledges the Gabrielino and Tongva peoples as the traditional land caretakers of Tovaangar (the Los Angeles basin and Southern Channel Islands) and that their displacement has enabled UCLA’s flourishing. As a land grant institution, we pay our respects to the Honuukvetam (Ancestors), Ahiihirom (Elders), and Eyoohiinken (our relatives nations) past, present, and emerging.

Disclaimer

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the University of California, Los Angeles as a whole. The authors alone are responsible for the content of this report.

For More Information

Contact: lppipress@luskin.ucla.edu

© October 2026 by the Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States.