If it seems like every California election is a siege of debt and taxes, that’s because it is. Welcome to “The Exhausted Taxpayer’s Guide to the California Ballot,” November 2026 edition.
There are 14 ballot measures on the statewide ballot this fall. Eight of them deal directly with debt or taxes.
Proposition 1 is debt. It authorizes $11.25 billion in state general obligation bonds for affordable housing programs, which means the state will borrow $11.25 billion and taxpayers will pay it back with interest over decades. Bond money is the most expensive way to pay for anything, and it’s best used to pay for things that will provide a benefit to the taxpayers who will still be paying for the things 25 years later, instead of for “programs” that will quickly run out of money again.
Proposition 3 is a tax increase, the permanent extension of temporary income tax increases on high earners that would otherwise expire. Voters first passed the tax increases in 2012 under threat of draconian cuts to education if they didn’t. In 2016, voters agreed to extend the high rates, again temporarily. This year, the California Teachers Association collected signatures to place Prop. 3 on the ballot, finally dropping the pretense that this was ever temporary. Now they’re pretending it’s not a tax increase. Enrollment is declining, but the teachers’ union thinks that’s no reason to reduce the number of union members on the payroll in the state’s public schools. None of this is about the students.
Proposition 37 is a gargantuan $25 billion in bonds (not backed by taxpayers) to fund second mortgages for people who can’t come up with the cash for a 20% down payment. It’s a complicated program that does a little something, but not that much, for income-limited homebuyers, and a little something, but not that much, for housing developers who build or convert price-capped homes or condos. There’s no guarantee that the second mortgages in this program will be less expensive than private-market mortgages, and there’s no guarantee that developers will build more new housing than they would build without this program. The cost of issuing and repaying these bonds plus the administrative costs of the program will be paid by the borrowers, the same people who didn’t have the cash for a down payment. The charges will be built into their new second mortgage payments. You can almost hear a chorus of ghostly voices from the housing market saying, “Don’t help me.”
Proposition 38 is more debt for taxpayers, this time in the form of $8.4 billion in borrowed money for immunology research. The measure is written to direct half the money to one particular research facility that by coincidence, or maybe not by coincidence, was co-founded by the individual who put up the money to collect the signatures to get this on the ballot.
Proposition 40 is the so-called “Billionaire Tax.” It would be an entirely new kind of tax in California on the value of what people own, not what they earn, gain or spend. It’s presented to voters as a one-time grab of 5% of the global assets of only about 200 people, with nearly all the money going into a special fund for health care spending. (In another coincidence, or maybe not, Prop. 40 was placed on the ballot by a union of workers who are paid from government health care spending.) The measure empowers the Legislature to amend the law later, which should give everybody nightmares. After all, once the regulatory and enforcement regime for a wealth tax is all set up, the Legislature might think it a pity not to share it with more taxpayers.
About six months before the “Billionaire Tax” initiative was officially certified to have enough signatures to make it onto the ballot, the billionaires struck back. Two initiatives were filed with the attorney general’s office in December 2025 that conflicted with the measure that later became Prop. 40. These two measures became Proposition 41 and Proposition 42.
When two measures conflict, and both pass, only the one with the higher vote total takes effect. The other one is dead.
Prop. 42 essentially prohibits a wealth tax. Prop. 41 requires pre-election audits of programs funded by new special taxes, and it also prohibits new state taxes that exclude their revenue from the Gann Limit, a constitutional restraint on spending growth that dates to 1979. Each of these measures conflicts with Prop. 40, so even if Prop. 40 passes, it will be blocked if Prop. 41 and especially Prop. 42 end up with more votes when all the ballots are finally counted.
The most important measure on the November ballot for taxpayers is Proposition 43, which makes it harder to raise local “special” taxes, those that earmark and lock the money for a particular purpose. Maybe you’ve noticed the recent trend of “citizens’ initiative tax increases” placed on local ballots by special interest groups collecting signatures. These are exploiting a court-created loophole that has allowed “citizens’ initiative tax increases” to pass with fewer votes. While the identical tax would require a two-thirds vote to pass if placed on the ballot by a city council or other government body, courts have allowed “citizens’ initiative tax increases” to pass with only 50% plus one vote.
Proposition 43 closes that loophole and makes clear that all local special taxes need a two-thirds vote to pass, no matter how they get on the ballot. Sales taxes, parcel taxes, hotel taxes, business taxes, utility taxes – any taxes that earmark the revenue for an exclusive purpose will need a two-thirds vote to pass. General taxes would continue to pass with a simple majority.
The Exhausted Taxpayer’s Guide to the California Ballot, November 2026 edition, is NO on 1, 3, 37, 38 and 40, and YES on 41, 42 and 43.
Polling places and more information can be found at voterstatus.sos.ca.gov.
Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on X @Susan_Shelley