Election 2026 · State of California
Proposition 40: One-time 5% tax on billionaires
Proposition 40 would impose a one-time state tax of 5% of net worth on billionaires who lived in California on January 1, 2026. The tax would be due in 2027, with an option to pay over five years at a higher cost. Real estate and most pensions and retirement accounts would be left out. Ninety percent of the money would go to health care and the rest to education and food aid.
Summary by CityHallPass, not the official text or legal advice. The official text controls: California Official Voter Information Guide: Proposition 40.
At a glance
| Proposition 40 | |
|---|---|
| Who pays | Californians with net worth of $1 billion or more on Jan. 1, 2026 (a few hundred people, the Legislative Analyst says) |
| Rate | 5% of net worth, once; lower between $1 billion and $1.1 billion |
| Revenue estimate | Tens of billions of dollars over several years (Legislative Analyst); about $100 billion (supporters) |
| Where the money goes | 90% health care; 10% K-14 education, food aid and running the tax |
| Competing measures | Props. 41 and 42. If either gets more yes votes than 40, courts could block 40 |
| Money raised, through Sept. 25, 2026 | For: $32.2 million. Against: $84.8 million. For Props. 41 and 42: $148.2 million |
| Largest donor | For: SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, $31.6 million. Against: Building a Better California, $73.5 million (Sergey Brin gave it $102 million) |
| Latest public poll | Berkeley IGS, Sept. 15-20: 45% yes, 42% no, 13% undecided |
What does a yes vote on Proposition 40 mean?
The state would collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.
What does a no vote on Proposition 40 mean?
The state would not collect a one-time tax from billionaires equal to 5 percent of their wealth.
What would Proposition 40 cost?
The Legislative Analyst says the state would probably collect tens of billions of dollars, spread over several years, and that the amount is very hard to predict. The state could also lose less than $1 billion a year in income tax if billionaires leave or change their finances. Running the tax could cost tens of millions of dollars a year for several years, paid from the new money.
What it means for the City of LA
Proposition 40 is a state tax paid into a state fund. The Legislative Analyst's estimate of state and local fiscal effects lists only state revenue effects, and the measure sets aside no share for cities or counties. The Legislature would decide how the health money is spent, which can include safety-net hospitals and clinics. Billionaires who lived in Los Angeles on January 1, 2026 would owe the tax. Los Angeles County supplied about 30% of the raw petition signatures filed to put it on the ballot.
The details
| Official title | Imposes One-Time Tax on Certain Taxpayers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. |
|---|---|
| Type | Initiative constitutional amendment and statute, placed on the ballot by petition signatures |
| Votes needed to pass | Simple majority (more than 50% yes) of votes cast statewide. If Proposition 41 or 42 also passes with more yes votes, Proposition 40 could be blocked. |
The question on your ballot
Imposes 5% tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion; revenue primarily for health care. Exempts revenues from constitutional requirements for school funding and spending limit. Fiscal Impact: Temporary revenue increase of tens of billions of dollars spread over several years from wealth tax on billionaires. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in income tax revenue from billionaires. Supporters: US Senator Bernie Sanders; SEIU United Healthcare Workers West Opponents: California Primary Care Association; California School Boards Association; California Taxpayers Association
What would change
| Today | If Proposition 40 passes | |
|---|---|---|
| Tax on wealth | California does not tax the ownership of financial assets like stocks and investment accounts. It taxes the income they earn (Legislative Analyst, Prop. 42 background) | A one-time tax of 5% of net worth for residents worth $1 billion or more (Legislative Analyst) |
| Who pays | Not applicable | People who were California residents on Jan. 1, 2026, with net worth measured on Dec. 31, 2026. A married couple counts as one taxpayer, and certain trusts also pay (text, Secs. 50301 and 50308). The Legislative Analyst says California has “a few hundred” billionaires (analysis) |
| Rate | Not applicable | 5%. For net worth between $1 billion and $1.1 billion, the rate drops 0.1 point for each $2 million below $1.1 billion (text, Sec. 50301(b)) |
| What counts | Not applicable | Businesses, stock, bonds, art, collectibles and intellectual property count. Real estate is left out. Qualified pensions and IRAs are left out, except Roth accounts worth more than $10 million combined (Attorney General’s summary; text, Sec. 50303(c)) |
| When it is paid | Not applicable | With 2026 state income tax returns, in 2027, or in five yearly installments with a 7.5% annual charge on the unpaid balance (text, Sec. 50301(c)) |
| Filing for everyone else | Not applicable | Every California resident who files a 2026 state return must declare either that their net worth was $1 billion or less, or the tax owed (text, Sec. 50301(d)) |
| Where the money goes | Not applicable | A new state reserve fund. After administration costs, 90% to health care and 10% to K-14 education and food aid. The Legislature may spend up to $22.5 billion a year from the health account and $2.5 billion from the other (text, Gov. Code Sec. 16355) |
| School funding and spending limit | Most new state tax revenue counts toward the school funding guarantee and the state spending limit | This money would not count toward either (Legislative Analyst; text, Art. XIII, Sec. 37(e)-(f)) |
| Changes later | Not applicable | The Legislature may amend the act by a two-thirds vote of each house if the change is “consistent with and furthers the purposes” of the act (text, Sec. 50310) |
The measure bars using the money to replace existing state spending on health care, education or food aid. The Department of Finance must report the fund’s balance and spending to the Legislature each year (text, Gov. Code Sec. 16355(d) and (f)). The text does not create an independent audit or oversight board for the spending. The only audit duty it sets is the Franchise Tax Board’s review of tax returns (text, Sec. 50301(e)).
Propositions 41 and 42 could cancel it
Two other initiatives on the same ballot conflict with Proposition 40. The Legislative Analyst’s note in the printed guide says: “If Proposition 41 or 42 on this same ballot receive more ‘yes’ votes than Proposition 40, then Proposition 40 could be stopped from becoming law even if it gets yes votes from a majority of voters” (guide, p. 55). The State Constitution says that when two measures passed at the same election conflict, the one with more yes votes prevails (Cal. Const., Art. II, Sec. 10(b)).
| What it does | How it conflicts with Prop. 40 | |
|---|---|---|
| Proposition 41 | Bars any state tax enacted or taking effect on or after Jan. 1, 2026 from being excluded from the state spending limit, and requires State Auditor reviews of new special taxes (Prop. 41 text, Art. XXIV, Sec. 3) | Prop. 40’s money is excluded from the spending limit (Prop. 40 text, Art. XIII, Sec. 37(f)). Prop. 41 says any measure on the same ballot with such a tax conflicts with it and is void in full if 41 gets more yes votes (Prop. 41 text, Sec. 5) |
| Proposition 42 | Bars new state taxes on the ownership of personal property, including business interests, financial assets and retirement accounts, and new taxes based on a status that existed before the tax took effect, including residency. Applies to taxes enacted on or after Jan. 1, 2026 (Prop. 42 text, Art. VIII, Secs. 1-2) | Prop. 40 taxes those assets and applies to people based on residency on Jan. 1, 2026 (Prop. 40 text, Sec. 50308). Prop. 42 declares such a measure on the same ballot in conflict and void if 42 gets more yes votes (Prop. 42 text, Sec. 5) |
Proposition 40 has its own conflict clause. It treats as conflicting only another measure that taxes billionaire net worth or spends money from such a tax, and says it prevails “in their entirety” over that measure if it gets more yes votes (Prop. 40 text, Sec. 8).
How the outcomes work, as the Legislative Analyst and CalMatters describe them (guide, p. 55; CalMatters, republished by LAist, Sept. 24, 2026):
- Prop. 40 fails: no wealth tax, whatever happens to 41 and 42.
- Prop. 40 passes and 41 and 42 both fail: the tax takes effect.
- Prop. 40 passes and gets more yes votes than whichever of 41 or 42 also passed: the tax takes effect. CalMatters wrote that the conflicting measures would then be voided.
- Prop. 40 passes, but 41 or 42 passes with more yes votes: Prop. 40 could be blocked. The Legislative Analyst says courts “could find” a conflict, so a court would make the final call.
Propositions 41 and 42 have the same proponent, Kurt R. Oneto, and both qualified for the ballot in June 2026 (Secretary of State, eligible measures). Their campaign committees are funded almost entirely by Building a Better California, which also funds the main No on 40 committee (see Money). See our Proposition 41 and Proposition 42 pages.
How it got on the ballot
Proposition 40 is a citizen initiative, placed on the ballot by voter petitions.
- Dec. 26, 2025: The Attorney General issued the petition’s title and summary. The listed proponent is Suzanne Jimenez (Secretary of State, eligible measures), chief of staff of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West (argument in favor).
- Feb. 18, 2026: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders headlined the campaign’s kickoff at the Wiltern in Los Angeles (LA Times; Orange County Register).
- Feb. 26, 2026: The campaign reported gathering 25% of the signatures needed (Secretary of State, eligible measures).
- April 27-29, 2026: Petitions were filed with all 58 counties. They held 1,617,675 raw signatures, 491,155 of them from Los Angeles County (Secretary of State random sample count). That is about 30% from Los Angeles County (our calculation).
- June 17, 2026: The random sample projected 980,438 valid signatures. That was more than 110% of the 874,641 needed, so the measure became eligible without a full count (Secretary of State random sample count).
- June 18, 2026: SEIU-UHW offered to withdraw the measure if Gov. Gavin Newsom would support a 2% tax passed by the Legislature. A Newsom spokesperson said scaling it back did not change its “fundamental flaws,” the Associated Press reported (AP via LA Times).
- June 25-26, 2026: No deal was reached by the June 25 deadline to withdraw measures. Early on June 26 the Secretary of State certified the measure for the Nov. 3 ballot (LA Times). Propositions 41 and 42 also qualified (Secretary of State, eligible measures).
Vote needed. Proposition 40 amends the State Constitution and adds state laws. Both parts pass with a majority of votes cast (Cal. Const., Art. XVIII, Sec. 4; Art. II, Sec. 10).
Related measures. Proposition 3 on the same ballot would make permanent the higher income tax rates on high earners that voters first approved in 2012 (Secretary of State, eligible measures). In June 2026, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure ER, a half-cent county sales tax aimed at the same federal health care cuts, LAist noted (LAist). See our Proposition 3 page.
What each side says
In the state voter guide. Arguments are the opinions of their authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency (guide).
Argument for, signed by Suzanne Jimenez of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, Victoria Barron of Planned Parenthood of Pacific Southwest and Denise Robb of the Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, AFT Local 1521 (argument in favor):
- Federal cuts: the federal budget law “slashed funding for healthcare in California,” and the tax would replace that money.
- Revenue: about 200 billionaires would pay, raising “about $100 billion.”
- Fairness: billionaires “pay much lower rates than working families.”
- Opponents’ money: Sergey Brin “has spent over $57 million to oppose Prop. 40.”
The rebuttal, signed by the California Teachers Association, the California Taxpayers Association and the State Building and Construction Trades Council, says the tax would cost the state “$25 billion” in lost revenue, “shortchanges public schools $3 billion annually,” and lets the Legislature “expand the tax without a vote of the people” (rebuttal).
Argument against, signed by Dr. René Bravo of the California Medical Association, Francisco Silva of the California Primary Care Association and Dr. Debra Schade of the California School Boards Association (argument against):
- Revenue loss: a Stanford study found the tax would cost the state “$25 billion” as billionaires leave.
- Legislative power: the Legislature could amend the measure without voter approval, and an outside legal analysis says that opens the door to taxing all Californians.
- Retirement accounts: it would be the first California tax on retirement accounts.
- Spending rules: it exempts itself from school funding protections and the state spending limit and has “no accountability, transparency or oversight provisions.”
- One-time money: “When the money runs out, the politicians will be back with yet another tax.”
The supporters’ rebuttal says the tax “cannot be applied to anyone else” and repeats the $100 billion figure (rebuttal).
Outside the guide.
- Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote that “we can’t let a single advocacy organization, however well-intentioned, write the state’s tax code on its own terms,” and called for a national wealth tax instead (LA Times, June 25, 2026).
- Rep. Ro Khanna: “If you’re opposed to this tax, you’re on the side of trickle-down economics” (LA Times, June 25, 2026).
- Rob Lapsley of the California Business Roundtable said every California taxpayer would have to file a sworn net worth declaration (LA Times, June 25, 2026).
- United Domestic Workers President Astrid Zuniga said her union supports taxing billionaires more but opposes Prop. 40 because it “does not create the sustainable funding stream” care programs need (LA Times, July 30, 2026).
Checking the main factual claims against official records.
| Claim | Who makes it | What official records and analysts show |
|---|---|---|
| Raises about $100 billion | Yes campaign | The Legislative Analyst says “probably” tens of billions over several years and calls the amount “very hard to predict” (analysis). The California Budget & Policy Center says the $100 billion estimate assumes 10% of the tax base is lost to avoidance, and that Hoover Institution researchers estimate closer to $40 billion (CBPC) |
| About 200 billionaires would pay | Yes campaign | The Legislative Analyst says “a few hundred” (analysis). The Budget & Policy Center, using Forbes data, says about 250 (CBPC) |
| Costs California $25 billion in lost revenue | No campaign | The Legislative Analyst estimates a possible ongoing loss of “less than $1 billion per year” in income tax (analysis). The $25 billion figure is a Hoover Institution estimate of net present value that counts future income tax losses from billionaires who leave, as described by the Independent Institute (Independent Institute) and the Sacramento Bee (Sacramento Bee via MSN) |
| The Legislature could expand the tax without a vote | No campaign | The Legislature may amend the act by two-thirds of each house, only if the change is “consistent with and furthers the purposes” of the act (text, Sec. 50310). The tax as written applies for tax year 2026 to people and trusts worth $1 billion or more (text, Sec. 50301(a)). Whether a court would allow a broader amendment has not been tested |
| Taxes retirement accounts | No campaign | Qualified pensions and IRAs are exempt. Roth-type accounts count only above $10 million combined (text, Sec. 50303(c)(7)) |
| Shortchanges schools $3 billion a year | No campaign | The Legislative Analyst confirms the money would not count toward the school funding guarantee (analysis). The analysis does not give a dollar figure for schools |
| No accountability or oversight | No campaign | The text requires yearly Department of Finance reports and a certification that the money does not replace existing funding. It creates no audit of spending (text, Gov. Code Sec. 16355) |
| Cannot be applied to anyone else | Yes campaign | The tax applies only at $1 billion or more, but every resident who files a 2026 return must make a declaration (text, Sec. 50301) |
| Brin spent over $57 million to oppose it | Yes campaign | State filings show Brin gave $102 million to Building a Better California, which gave the No on 40 committee $56.5 million through Sept. 19 and $73.5 million through Sept. 25 (Cal-Access, Building a Better California; Cal-Access, No on 40 committee) |
Who supports and opposes it
Supporters
- SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, the sponsor (Cal-Access).
- California Democratic Party. Its executive board voted to endorse on Aug. 2 and to oppose Props. 41 and 42 (LA Times; Mercury News).
- U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna (LA Times).
- California Federation of Labor Unions, California Nurses Association, AFSCME California PEOPLE Committee, Teamsters California, UNITE HERE Local 11 and the California Working Families Party (Yes on 40 endorsement list; LA Times, Aug. 17, 2026 for the Federation of Labor).
- Los Angeles endorsers on the campaign’s list: Rep. Judy Chu, County Supervisor Hilda Solis, City Councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Ysabel Jurado, the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, CLUE, SAJE and the Los Angeles Black Worker Center (Yes on 40 endorsement list).
Opponents
- Gov. Gavin Newsom and both candidates for governor, Xavier Becerra and Steve Hilton (LAist; argument against).
- California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association, California School Boards Association, California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Children’s Hospital Association and California Professional Firefighters (argument against).
- California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, California Business Roundtable, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the State Building and Construction Trades Council (No on 40 coalition list).
- California State Council of Laborers and United Domestic Workers (LA Times, July 30, 2026).
- Nine Democratic state lawmakers signed an open letter against it, including Assemblymembers Jacqui Irwin, Lisa Calderon and John Harabedian (LA Times, Aug. 17, 2026).
- Los Angeles groups on the No campaign’s list: IBEW Local 11, the Los Angeles Business Federation (BizFed), the Valley Industry & Commerce Association, the Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber and the Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce (No on 40 coalition list).
Neutral. SEIU California’s executive board voted in July to stay neutral (LA Times, July 30, 2026).
Editorial boards. The Los Angeles Times (Sept. 6) recommends no. The Daily News and the Orange County Register ran the same editorial recommending no (Daily News, Sept. 13; Orange County Register, Sept. 13). A majority of the Sacramento Bee editorial board recommends yes (Sacramento Bee via MSN, Sept. 21).
We found no published position from Mayor Karen Bass as of Sept. 30, 2026.
Money for and against
| For Prop. 40 | Against Prop. 40 | For Props. 41 and 42 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Committees | Yes on 40 (SEIU-UHW) | No on Prop 40 (Doctors, Teachers…); Golden State Promise; Stop the Squeeze; Californians Against Tax Increases | Yes on 41; Yes on 42 |
| Raised, through Sept. 19, 2026 | $31,862,430.53 | $67,791,279.44 | $119,203,483.18 |
| Late contributions, Sept. 20-29 | $354,233.41 | $17,030,000 | $29,000,000 |
| Total reported | $32,216,663.94 | $84,821,279.44 | $148,203,483.18 |
| Cash on hand, Sept. 19 | $207,339.56 | $15,364,627.00 | $2,270,867.77 |
| Unpaid bills, Sept. 19 | $5,486,570.34 | $18,000,799.77 | $18,927,320.61 |
Source: each committee’s campaign statements (Form 460) and late contribution reports (Form 497) in the Cal-Access raw data export dated Sept. 30, 2026, analyzed by CityHallPass. Committee pages: Yes on 40, No on 40, Golden State Promise, Stop the Squeeze, Californians Against Tax Increases, Yes on 41, Yes on 42. The “against” column counts $21,279.44 twice, because Stop the Squeeze passed it on to the No on 40 committee. Totals through Sept. 19 match the LA Times count of $187 million raised against Prop. 40 and for the two competing measures, versus $32 million for it (LA Times, Sept. 28, 2026). The Secretary of State’s contribution totals page still showed figures through Aug. 2 when checked on Sept. 30.
Who is giving
Method: every itemized contribution on the committees’ statements from Jan. 1, 2025 through Sept. 19, 2026, plus late contribution reports after that date, from the Cal-Access raw data export. Different spellings of one donor are merged. Shares are ours.
For. The Yes on 40 committee reported 73 donors. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West gave $31,578,562.91 through its union treasury, its political issues committee and its PAC. That is 98.0% of all money raised. About $10.3 million of that came as in-kind help rather than cash, mostly $7.4 million in petition costs and $2.4 million in staff salaries (Cal-Access). The largest other donors were Saikat Chakrabarti ($201,000), Ross Boucher ($200,000) and Hillary Perkins ($100,000). Fifty-three donors gave less than $1,000 each, $8,485 in all.
Against. Building a Better California supplied $73.5 million of the $73.7 million raised by the main No on 40 committee (99.7%). The California Medical Association and California Primary Care Association Advocates gave $100,000 each (Cal-Access). Golden State Promise, a separate No committee, was funded by Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen ($5 million), Ripple Labs ($5 million) and the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC ($450,000) (Cal-Access).
Where Building a Better California’s money comes from. Its state filings list 37 donors, all individuals, who gave $251.2 million from January through Sept. 25, 2026 (Cal-Access). The top five gave 77.1%.
| Donor | Employer as reported | Amount | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sergey Brin (Nevada address) | $102,000,000 | 40.6% | |
| L. John Doerr III | Kleiner Perkins | $30,000,000 | 11.9% |
| Eric Schmidt | None listed | $27,128,813.01 | 10.8% |
| Patrick Collison | Stripe | $22,000,000 | 8.8% |
| Vinod Khosla | Khosla Ventures | $12,561,504 | 5.0% |
| Chris Larsen | Ripple | $12,511,844.80 | 5.0% |
| Michael Moritz | None listed | $7,500,000 | 3.0% |
| Kavitark Ram Shriram | Self-employed | $5,005,599.45 | 2.0% |
| Stewart Resnick | The Wonderful Company | $4,500,000 | 1.8% |
| John Hering | Private investor | $3,378,375 | 1.3% |
Source: Cal-Access, Building a Better California, from the raw data export, analyzed by CityHallPass. About $32.5 million of the group’s receipts through Sept. 19 were non-cash gifts, mostly stock, including Khosla’s and part of Schmidt’s.
Building a Better California’s reported payments through Sept. 19 went mostly to ballot committees: $60.8 million to Yes on 42, $58.35 million to Yes on 41, $56.5 million to No on 40, $10 million to Yes on 45, $6 million to Yes on 37, $3.1 million to a committee for a school funding initiative that did not reach the ballot, and $1 million to Yes on Prop. 1 (Cal-Access). A group spokesperson said the state “is at an inflection point” due to its high cost of living and taxes (LA Times, Aug. 17, 2026).
How the money was spent. The Yes committee paid Kimball Petition Management $19.9 million, 93.1% of its cash payments (Cal-Access). With SEIU-UHW’s in-kind petition costs, about $27.3 million went to qualifying the measure (our calculation). The main No committee paid Pier 91 Media $37.1 million and Amplified Strategies $2.7 million, 95.9% of its cash payments together, and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates $377,000 (Cal-Access). Golden State Promise paid Targeted Platform Media $8.2 million for television (Cal-Access).
Outside spending
Reform California, Assemblymember Carl DeMaio’s ballot measure committee, filed 24-hour independent expenditure reports of $28,500 marked as opposing Prop. 40, and the California Democratic Socialists of America PAC reported about $3,000 in support, both through Sept. 29 (Cal-Access raw data export). A committee called Tax the Ultra-Rich Now, Yes on 3 & 40, No on 41 & 42 had raised $362,225, led by Alan Davis ($250,000), and had spent $57,230.99 through Sept. 19 (Cal-Access).
Independent analysis
- Legislative Analyst. Revenue of “tens of billions of dollars” over several years. Timing and amount are “very hard to predict” because billionaires may act to reduce the tax and much of the wealth is in stock. A possible ongoing income tax loss of “less than $1 billion per year.” Administration costs of tens of millions a year for several years (analysis).
- California Budget & Policy Center (a Sacramento research group). The tax would likely raise tens of billions in the near term, but the state could not keep paying for the same services after that without other money. It expects legal challenges over applying the tax based on residency before the vote (CBPC).
- Hoover Institution researchers, as reported: about $40 billion collected (CBPC), with a net loss of $24.7 billion in present value once future income tax losses are counted (Independent Institute). We did not locate the Hoover paper itself.
- Independent Institute (an Oakland research group). Its report argues the measure relies on flawed tax-rate estimates and says six billionaires left California before Jan. 1, 2026 (Independent Institute).
If it passes
- Effective date. The constitutional amendment takes effect on the fifth day after the Secretary of State files the statement of the vote (Cal. Const., Art. XVIII, Sec. 4). The tax covers tax year 2026, with residency fixed on Jan. 1, 2026 and net worth measured on Dec. 31, 2026 (text, Sec. 50308).
- Payment. Due with 2026 state income tax returns in 2027, or in five yearly installments (text, Sec. 50301(c)).
- Start-up. The Franchise Tax Board gets a start-up loan of up to $50 million, repaid from the tax before any other spending (text, Gov. Code Sec. 16355(e)).
- Competing measures. If Prop. 41 or 42 also passes with more yes votes, Prop. 40 could be blocked (see above).
- Court challenges. Any challenge to the measure’s validity on its face must be filed within 60 days of the vote in Sacramento Superior Court. If none is filed, it is treated as valid. The text asks the Superior Court to rule by April 1, 2027 and the State Supreme Court by Nov. 1, 2027 (text, Sec. 50314). If a court finds the Jan. 1, 2026 date invalid, the text tells courts to move it to the earliest lawful date (text, Sec. 50311). The proponent or any citizen may defend the measure if the Attorney General does not (text, Sec. 9). The Sacramento Bee editorial board wrote that the measure “will almost certainly face litigation” over the residency date (Sacramento Bee via MSN). California Medical Association CEO Dustin Corcoran said legal challenges could delay it for years; SEIU-UHW President Dave Regan said they could be resolved in 12 months (Bloomberg, in the LA Times).
Key moments
We found no debate between the two campaigns in news coverage as of Sept. 30, 2026.
- Campaign launch in Los Angeles (Feb. 18, 2026). Sanders told about 2,000 people at the Wiltern that billionaires “see themselves as something separate and apart, like the oligarchs” (LA Times; Orange County Register).
- Competing measures circulate (March 2026). Mailers asked voters to sign a petition for what became Prop. 41. The LA Times reported that the committee sending them was funded by Building a Better California (LA Times, March 10, 2026). State filings show Building a Better California as the only large donor to both the Yes on 41 and Yes on 42 committees (Cal-Access, Yes on 41; Cal-Access, Yes on 42).
- Democratic Party endorsement (Aug. 2, 2026). The state party’s executive board endorsed Prop. 40, breaking with Newsom (LA Times; Mercury News).
- Building a Better California joins the No campaign (Aug. 2026). After funding Props. 41 and 42, the group gave its first $5 million to the No on 40 committee in August (LA Times, Aug. 17, 2026; Cal-Access).
Polls
| Pollster | Field dates | Sample | Margin of error | Yes | No | Undecided | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the LA Times | Aug. 3-9, 2026 | 2,310 likely voters, online | About 2.5 points | 48% | 41% | 11% | LA Times |
| Public Policy Institute of California | Sept. 4-10, 2026 | 1,103 likely voters | 3.8 points | 52% | 46% | 2% | LAist; Mercury News |
| UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by the LA Times | Sept. 15-20, 2026 | 4,512 likely voters, online | About 2 points (overall sample) | 45% | 42% | 13% | LA Times |
In the same poll, PPIC found 51% for Prop. 41 and 54% for Prop. 42 (LAist). The September IGS poll found 37% for Prop. 41 and 43% for Prop. 42 (LA Times). A UC Berkeley Citrin Center poll with POLITICO, fielded by TrueDot, found 45% yes and 43% no; the published story did not give field dates or sample size (POLITICO via MSN, Sept. 21, 2026).