Election 2026 · State of California
Proposition 3: Make high-income tax rates permanent
Proposition 3 would make permanent the higher state income tax rates on high earners that voters first approved in 2012 (Proposition 30) and extended in 2016 (Proposition 55). Those rates are now set to expire in 2031. They apply to income over about $371,000 for single filers and $742,000 for joint filers (2025 levels, adjusted for inflation).
Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 3.
At a glance
| Proposition 3 | |
|---|---|
| Who pays | Top 2% of taxpayers: income over about $371,000 single or $742,000 joint (2025) |
| Revenue kept | $5 billion to $15 billion a year starting in 2031 (Legislative Analyst) |
| Vote needed | Simple majority |
| Money raised, Jan. 2025 to Sept. 28, 2026 | For: $48.42 million (main committee). Against: $5,500 |
| Largest donor | California Teachers Association, $33.28 million (68.7%) |
| Outside spending | Against: $38,500 by Reform California (shared with other props). For: about $18,000 |
| Latest public polls | PPIC, Sept. 4-10: 58% yes, 40% no. Berkeley IGS, Sept. 15-20: 54% yes, 34% no |
What does a yes vote on Proposition 3 mean?
An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would become permanent instead of expiring in 2031.
What does a no vote on Proposition 3 mean?
An income tax increase on high-income earners in place since 2012 would expire in 2031.
What would Proposition 3 cost?
The Legislative Analyst estimates the state would keep $5 billion to $15 billion a year in income tax revenue that would otherwise end in 2031. The amount would swing with the stock market. Roughly 40% would go to schools and community colleges, and the rest to other state programs, with part set aside in budget reserves.
What it means for the City of LA
The City of Los Angeles would not receive this money directly. The school share goes to school districts and community colleges, such as LAUSD and the Los Angeles Community College District, which are separate governments; the LAUSD board endorsed Proposition 3 in August 2026. The rest supports the state General Fund, which pays for state programs used in the City, including homelessness grants to local governments. City residents with incomes above the thresholds would keep paying the higher rates after 2031.
The details
| Official title | Provides Permanent Funding for Schools and Health Care by Extending Existing Tax on High Incomes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. |
|---|---|
| Type | Initiative constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by petition signatures |
| Votes needed to pass | Simple majority (more than 50% yes) of votes cast statewide. Under the State Constitution (Article XVIII, Section 4), an amendment takes effect if "approved by a majority of votes cast thereon." |
The question on your ballot
Makes permanent existing voter-approved tax rates for individuals earning over $371,000 (adjusted annually for inflation). Allocates tax revenues to public education. Fiscal Impact: Maintains $5 billion to $15 billion of annual state income tax revenue by making a temporary tax increase on high-income earners permanent instead of letting it expire in 2031. Supporters: California Teachers Association; CA School Nurses Organization; California State PTA; Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; Family Business Association of California; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
This is not the Proposition 3 on the November 5, 2024 ballot, the constitutional amendment on the right to marry, which passed with 62.6% of the vote (Secretary of State, November 2024 Statement of Vote).
What would change
| Today | If Proposition 3 passes | |
|---|---|---|
| Top income tax rates | 10.3%, 11.3% and 12.3% on income above the thresholds, through the 2030 tax year; they expire in 2031 (LAO analysis; Budget Center) | The same rates, with no end date (title and summary) |
| Who pays | About the top 2% of taxpayers, who pay about half of all state income taxes (LAO analysis). 2025 thresholds: about $371,000 single, $742,000 joint, $505,000 head of household (title and summary) | Same, with thresholds still adjusted each year for inflation (title and summary) |
| Revenue | Recently about $10 billion a year, the Budget Center says (Budget Center) | $5 billion to $15 billion a year kept after 2031 (LAO analysis) |
| Where it goes | Deposited in the Education Protection Account: 89% to K-12 schools, 11% to community colleges (title and summary) | Same. Because the money counts toward the state’s school funding guarantee, the Analyst says roughly 40% ends up as added school funding and the rest supports other programs and reserves (LAO analysis) |
| Local control and audits | School boards decide how to spend it in public meetings, may not use it for administrators’ pay, must post an annual accounting online, and must have it checked in their annual audit (text, Sec. 4) | Unchanged (text, Sec. 4) |
| Medi-Cal formula from Prop 55 | A formula that could send some revenue to Medi-Cal; the Budget Center says it has never done so (Budget Center) | The measure lets it expire (Budget Center) |
For the City of Los Angeles:
- No money goes to the City directly. The school share is paid to school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community college districts (text, Sec. 4). In Los Angeles those are LAUSD and other districts, and the Los Angeles Community College District, which are separate from City government.
- LAUSD’s position. The LAUSD Board of Education adopted a resolution in support of Proposition 3, introduced by board members Rivas and Schmerelson, on Aug. 25, 2026 (LAUSD Res-006-26/27).
- Through the state budget. The Budget Center says the revenue has freed General Fund money for other programs, and lists the state’s Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) grants to local governments among the programs created since 2012 (Budget Center). The City budgets HHAP money (City 2026-27 Proposed Budget). Neither the Analyst nor the Budget Center estimates the effect on any city.
- Who in the City pays. City residents with taxable income above the thresholds would keep paying the higher rates. We did not find official data on how many City residents pay them.
- We found no City Council position on Proposition 3 as of Sept. 30, 2026.
How it got on the ballot
Proposition 3 is a citizen initiative (No. 25-0016). It amends Section 36 of Article XIII of the State Constitution (text).
- Nov. 4, 2025: The Attorney General issued the title and summary. The proponents are Benjamin Gevercer and David B. Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association (SOS eligible measures; argument in favor).
- Jan. 13, 2026: Proponents reported reaching 25% of the needed signatures (SOS eligible measures).
- June 10, 2026: Counties’ random samples projected 1,151,120 valid signatures from 1,648,745 submitted, against 874,641 needed, so the measure became eligible. Los Angeles County received 454,802 signatures, 314,836 of them projected valid (SOS random sample count). The campaign paid Democracy Werks California 2024, LLC $17,435,148.50 for petition and related work (Cal-Access raw data export).
Why the vote threshold is a simple majority. A constitutional amendment “if approved by a majority of votes cast thereon, takes effect” (Cal. Const. art. XVIII, sec. 4). The tax is a general income tax rate, not a local special tax, so the two-thirds rules for local special taxes and Proposition 43 do not apply to it (LAO analysis; Prop 43 title and summary).
Related past measures.
- Proposition 30 (November 2012) created the higher rates, plus a temporary sales tax, through 2018 (Budget Center). It passed with 55.4% statewide and 60.4% in Los Angeles County (Statement of Vote, 2012).
- Proposition 55 (November 2016) extended the income tax rates through 2030 (LAO analysis). It passed with 63.3% statewide and 67.5% in Los Angeles County (Statement of Vote, 2016).
What each side says
In the state voter guide. Arguments are the authors’ opinions and are not checked for accuracy by any official agency (arguments).
Argument in favor, signed by David Goldberg of the California Teachers Association, Katie Nilsson of the California School Nurses Organization and Jodi Hicks of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (argument in favor):
- It “is NOT a new tax and does NOT raise taxes on anyone”; without it, “millionaires and billionaires” get a tax cut.
- Without it, schools face “billions in cuts,” and Medi-Cal “could be put at risk.”
- The money goes “directly to local schools” and “the Legislature and Sacramento politicians cannot touch it.”
- It is “independently audited every year.”
Their rebuttal, signed by the presidents of the California Federation of Teachers, California Professional Firefighters and California School Employees Association, adds that it protects “firefighters and wildfire protection” by freeing state money (rebuttal).
Argument against, signed by Robert Gutierrez of the California Taxpayers Association, Robert Rivinius of the Family Business Association of California and Julian Canete of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (argument against):
- Voters were told the rates were temporary, “only for seven years,” then they were extended “for another 12 years.”
- California has the nation’s highest income, sales and gas taxes, and higher taxes raise the cost of living.
- Spending “increased by $150 billion” since the rates began, and a “$100 billion budget surplus” became “a $30 billion budget deficit in just three years.”
- “California’s population barely grew in the past 10 years, but the politicians more than doubled spending.”
Their rebuttal to the argument in favor, signed by Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and two business group leaders, calls it “the largest permanent state income tax increase in California history” (rebuttal).
Outside the guide.
- CTA President David Goldberg told KCRA that without the measure services would be “cut across the board,” including “health care, resources for students and families” (New York Post, citing KCRA).
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jon Coupal said, “Proposition 3 is an extension of the existing tax rates, so its impact may not be as dramatic, but it still exists” (New York Post). The association’s guide says the “temporary” rates “should not be a backdoor method for permanent tax increases” (HJTA 2026 voting guide).
Checking the main factual claims against official records.
| Claim | Who makes it | What the records show |
|---|---|---|
| Not a new tax; does not raise anyone’s taxes | Yes campaign | The rates are in effect now. Prop 3 removes the 2031 end date (LAO analysis). Taxpayers above the thresholds would pay $5 billion to $15 billion a year more after 2031 than if the rates expired (LAO analysis). |
| Up to $15 billion a year; largest permanent income tax increase | No campaign | The Analyst’s range is $5 billion to $15 billion a year (LAO analysis). We did not find an official ranking of tax increases. |
| The money goes directly to schools and the Legislature cannot touch it | Yes campaign | The Education Protection Account sends the money to schools and colleges and bars its use for state costs (text, Sec. 4). The Analyst says that, because it counts toward the school funding guarantee, about 40% becomes added school funding and the rest supports other state programs (LAO analysis). |
| Audited every year, with criminal penalties for misuse | Yes campaign | Local annual audits must check the money, the Controller shall audit the account, and the Attorney General or district attorneys may seek civil or criminal penalties for misuse (text). |
| Temporary for seven years, then extended 12 more | No campaign | Prop 30’s income tax rates ran through 2018; Prop 55 extended them through 2030 (Budget Center; LAO analysis). |
| Only the top 2% pay | Yes campaign | The Analyst says the top 2% of taxpayers pay these rates (LAO analysis). |
We did not check the “$100 billion surplus to $30 billion deficit,” “$150 billion” spending growth or population figures against official budget records.
Who supports and opposes it
Supporters
- On the ballot label: California Teachers Association, California School Nurses Organization, California State PTA and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (ballot label).
- Named in the argument in favor: California Federation of Teachers, California Nurses Association, California School Employees Association, Community College League of California and Nurse Alliance of SEIU California (argument in favor). California Professional Firefighters signed the rebuttal (rebuttal).
- California Democratic Party (CDP positions, Aug. 2, 2026).
- League of Women Voters of California (LWVC recommendations).
- California State PTA, which voted to support in February 2026 (CAPTA).
- LAUSD Board of Education (LAUSD Res-006-26/27).
- Xavier Becerra, candidate for governor, supports Proposition 3 and opposes Proposition 40, the New York Post reported (New York Post).
- The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor reported spending for it (Cal-Access raw data export).
Opponents
- On the ballot label: California Taxpayers Association, Family Business Association of California and California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce (ballot label).
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco and Central Valley Business Federation signed the rebuttal (rebuttal; HJTA 2026 voting guide).
- Reform California (Carl DeMaio) reported independent spending against it (Cal-Access raw data export).
Editorial boards. The Los Angeles Daily News editorial board recommends a no vote: “Temporary should mean temporary” (Daily News, Sept. 2, 2026). We found no LA Times editorial board position as of Sept. 30, 2026, and no published position from the California Republican Party.
Money for and against
| For Proposition 3 | Against Proposition 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Main committee | Yes on Prop 3, sponsored by education and labor organizations (ID 1483562) | No on Proposition 3, sponsored by California Taxpayers Association (ID 1492860) |
| Raised, Jan. 1, 2025 to Sept. 19, 2026 | $43,284,890.47 | $5,500 |
| Raised, Sept. 20 to 28 (late reports) | $5,132,521.77 | $0 reported |
| Spent through Sept. 19 | $19,679,061.37 | $4,423.25 |
| Cash on hand, Sept. 19 | $23,870,087.75 | $5,500 |
| Independent spending | About $18,000 (see below) | $38,500 by Reform California, shared with other props |
Source: the committees’ campaign statements (1483562, July 1-Sept. 19, April-June, Jan.-March, Oct.-Dec. 2025; 1492860) and late reports through Sept. 28, from the Cal-Access raw data export of Sept. 30, analyzed by CityHallPass. The No committee’s cash figure is as reported on its statement.
Two committees that back several measures also support Proposition 3: Communities for an Affordable California (Yes on 3, No on 39 and 43), which reported $1,090,000, including $540,000 from the Yes on 3 committee and $200,000 from the California Community Foundation in Los Angeles; and Tax the Ultra-Rich Now (Yes on 3 and 40, No on 41 and 42), which reported $362,225, led by $250,000 from Alan Davis of San Francisco (Cal-Access raw data export; FPPC top-10 list).
Who is giving
Method: every itemized contribution to committee 1483562 from Jan. 1, 2025 through the late reports of Sept. 28, 2026, from the Cal-Access raw data export. Categories are ours.
- 19 donors, all unions, union committees or the Democratic Party. No individual gave.
- The CTA gave 68.7%. The California Teachers Association’s Issues PAC gave $33,275,000 in six payments from October 2025 to September 2026. With the National Education Association, the top two gave 84.2%.
- Out of state. National unions based in Washington, D.C. (NEA, AFSCME and SEIU’s national committee) gave $8,005,000, or 16.5%.
- Los Angeles County. SEIU Local 721 of Los Angeles gave $250,000. The Teachers Association of Long Beach, an AFSCME council in Norwalk and the Burbank Teachers Association gave smaller amounts, for $278,683.86 in all (0.6%).
| Type of donor | Donors | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teachers unions (CTA, NEA, CFT, local associations) | 5 | $42,543,683.86 | 87.9% |
| School employees unions (CSEA and its PAC) | 2 | $2,600,000.00 | 5.4% |
| SEIU committees | 5 | $2,055,000.00 | 4.2% |
| AFSCME and United Domestic Workers | 4 | $1,110,000.00 | 2.3% |
| School administrators (ACSA) | 1 | $100,000.00 | 0.2% |
| Democratic Party and CSU employees union | 2 | $8,728.38 | 0.0% |
Source: Cal-Access raw data export and the committee’s July-Sept. statement, analyzed by CityHallPass. The FPPC top-10 list shows the same top donors.
How the money was spent. Through Sept. 19 the Yes committee paid Democracy Werks California 2024, LLC $17,435,148.50, mostly for signature gathering, 89.8% of its itemized payments. Greenstripe Media got $495,000 for radio, Hart Research Associates $174,500 and Evitarus $108,000 for polling, and Gozzo Strategy & Campaigns and GroundWorks Campaigns together $527,438.04 for consulting (Cal-Access raw data export; statements).
Outside spending
Independent expenditures reported through Sept. 28, 2026 (Cal-Access raw data export):
- Against: Reform California with Carl DeMaio reported $38,500 for slate mailers, door hangers and campaign management, with the same payments listed against other propositions.
- For: Santa Monica Malibu Action Committee K-12 ($4,870), Tax the Ultra-Rich Now ($3,750), California Democratic Socialists of America PAC ($2,987.19, shared with Prop 40), the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor ($2,621.65), ACLU California Action ($2,200.70, shared) and the California Democratic Party ($1,479.85).
Independent analysis
- Legislative Analyst. The revenue “will go up and down a lot from year to year” because much of it comes from stock-market income: around $5 billion in a weak year, $15 billion in a strong one (LAO analysis).
- Budget Center. The California Budget & Policy Center, which does not endorse measures, says the rates have raised about $120 billion for schools since 2012, peaked at more than $16 billion in 2021, and apply to about 376,000 tax filers as of 2024. It estimates that without them schools would get about $2 billion to $6 billion a year less. Citing the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, it says most filers in the top 1% would get an average tax cut of nearly $59,000 a year if the rates expire (Budget Center).
- Taxpayer response. The Daily News editorial board cites research by Joshua Rauh and Ryan J. Shyu, published in 2024, finding that high earners’ responses to Prop 30, by moving or lowering taxable income, “eroded 45.2 percent of state windfall tax revenues within the first year” (Daily News). The Analyst’s estimate does not discuss this (LAO analysis).
Interaction with other measures on this ballot
- Conflict clause. Proposition 3 says any other measure on the same ballot “that affects the tax rates for personal income” is in conflict with it, and that if Proposition 3 gets more yes votes, the other measure is “null and void” (text, Sec. 5). The Analyst’s analysis does not name any measure on this ballot as conflicting with Proposition 3 (LAO analysis). Courts would decide any dispute.
- Proposition 40 is a separate one-time tax on billionaires’ wealth, not an income tax rate. The Analyst flags conflicts between Proposition 40 and Propositions 41 and 42, not Proposition 3 (LAO analysis of Prop 40, printed guide p. 55). See our Proposition 40 page.
- Proposition 2 would require larger rainy day fund deposits in high capital gains years; Prop 3 revenue is sensitive to capital gains, the Budget Center notes (Budget Center). See our Proposition 2 page.
If it passes
- When it takes effect. Five days after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote (Cal. Const. art. XVIII, sec. 4). Taxes would not change until 2031, when the rates would otherwise have expired (LAO analysis).
- Changes later. The rates would be written into the State Constitution (text, Sec. 4), and constitutional amendments take effect only with voter approval (Cal. Const. art. XVIII, sec. 4).
- Legal defense. If the state does not defend the measure in court, the proponent or any citizen may, with costs charged to the Attorney General’s funds (text, Sec. 7). We found no reported legal challenge as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Key moments
We found no debate focused on Proposition 3 in news coverage as of Sept. 30, 2026.
- Signature drive (2025-26). The Yes committee spent $17.4 million on its petition firm, and counties projected 1.15 million valid signatures (SOS random sample count; Cal-Access raw data export).
- Daily News says no (Sept. 2, 2026) (Daily News).
- Door-knocking (Sept. 19, 2026). More than 1,000 CTA educators canvassed from 70 locations statewide, FOX40 reported (FOX40 via MSN).
- Late money (September 2026). The NEA gave $3.5 million and PACE of CSEA $1.1 million after Sept. 19 (Cal-Access raw data export).
Polls
| Pollster | Field dates | Sample | Margin of error | Yes | No | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPIC Statewide Survey | Sept. 4-10, 2026 | 1,103 likely voters (online, Ipsos KnowledgePanel) | ±3.8 points | 58% | 40% | 2% |
| Berkeley IGS, co-sponsored by the LA Times (LA Times via Yahoo; San Jose Inside) | Sept. 15-20, 2026 | 4,512 likely voters (online, English and Spanish) | About ±2 points overall | 54% | 34% | 12% |
Source: PPIC, September 2026, pp. 9, 22 and 29; IGS results as reported by the LA Times and San Jose Inside, since the IGS release could not be downloaded. Both polls read respondents the ballot title and summary. PPIC found support below a majority among white likely voters (48%), those 55 and older (46%) and Central Valley residents (48%). Seventeen percent of PPIC’s likely voters named Proposition 3 as the measure they were most interested in. The IGS undecided figure is our calculation from the reported yes and no shares.